CALIFORNIA F1SH»»GAME I "CONSERVATION OF WILDUFE THROUGH EDUCATION" California Fish and Game is a journal devoted to the con- servation of wildlife. Its contents may be reproduced elsewhere provided credit is given the authors and the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game. The free mailing list is limited by budgetary considerations to persons who can make professional use of the material and to libraries, scientific institutions, and conservation agencies. Indi- viduals must state their afRliation and position when submitting their applications. Subscriptions must be renewed annually by returning the postcard enclosed with each October issue. Sub- scribers are asked to report changes in address without delay. Please direct correspondence to: JOHN E. FITCH, Editor State Fisheries Laboratory 51 1 Tuna Street Terminal Island, California Individuals and organizations who do not qualify for the free mailing list may subscribe at a rate of $2 per year or obtain individual issues for $0.75 per copy by placing their orders with the Printing Division, Documents Section, Sacramento 14, Cali- fornia. Money orders or checks should be made out to Printing Division, Documents Section. u D VOLUME 49 JULY 1963 NUMBER 3 Published Quarterly by THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SACRAMENTO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA HUGO FISHER, Administrafor FISH AND GAME COMMISSION JAMIE H. SMITH, President, Los Angeles HENRY CLINESCHMIDT, Vice President WILLIAM P. ELSER, Member Redding San Diego DANTE J. NOMELLINI, Member THOMAS H. RICHARDS, JR., Member Stockton Sacramento DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WALTER T. SHANNON, Director 722 Copitol Avenue Sacramento 14 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Editorial Staff JOHN E. FITCH, Editor-in-Chief Terminal Island JAMES H. RYAN, Editor for Inland Fisheries Sacramento ALBERT E. NAYLOR, Editor for Game Sacramento JOHN L. BAXTER, Editor for Morine Resources Terminal Island DONALD H. FRY, JR., Editor for Salmon and Steelhead Sacramento TABLE OF CONTENTS Pase A Dorafopsis larva of the squid family Chiroteuthidae in Califor- iiiaii waters S. IStiUmun Borii 128 The sea turtle fishery of Baja Califoruia, Mexico -Dr/r/V/ K. Cdhlnu II 140 Trawling in the Monterey Bay area, with special reference to catch composition Richard F. G. Ilcinunin ir)'2 Distribution of California angling effort in 19(U Norman J. Ahi-anis-oji 174 California inland angling surveys for 1959 and 1 !)()() Charles M. Sccley, Robert C. Tharratt, and Richard L. Johnson 183 Effect of ocean temperature on the seaward movements of stri])ed bass, Roccus saxatilis, on the Pacific coast John Radovich V.)l Notes Grain preference of captive w^aterfowd L. Z. McFartand, JIarr]i (reorge, and Harold McKinnic 207 A fantail sole. Xystreurys tiolepis, in Monterey Bav V. B. Phillips 20!) More giant squids from California Allyn G. Snillh 200 A second large catch of Pacific round herring Joh7i G. Carlisle, Jr. 212 New northern records for ocean whitefish, Cattlolatiliis princeps (Jenyns) Tom Jow 212 Greenland halibut, Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (AYalhaum), added to Californian fauna E. A. Best 21"] A second pinto lobster from California John JJ. Fitch 214 A record-size daggertooth taken off northern California Tom Jow 215 Reviews 217 (127) A ''DORATOPSIS" LARVA OF THE SQUID FAMILY CHIROTEUTHIDAE IN CALIFORNIAN WATERS' S. STILLMAN BERRY Redlands, California INTRODUCTION Animals of planktonie habit, whether during their larval or adult stages, are notorious for their very weak speciation and their wide geographical dissemination. The student with training and experience principally with littoral or terrestrial, and particularh'- nesiotic faunas meets with frustration almost amounting to disbelief when brought face to face with a group where, for example, a form collected in Californian offshore waters cannot be separated taxonomically from one found in the North Atlantic, or perhaps in the China Sea. Thus all living violet-snails (Jaiifhina), of which at least three occur at times in Californian waters, were recently claimed by one writer to fall into not more than five valid species. Such an estimate may seem a bit over-conservative but it does serve to illustrate my point. Among cephalopod mollusks, the present record will bring to at least four the number of species belonging in this weakly-localized or oceanic cate- gory, which have undergone so little differentiation we cannot divide them even into clear-cut geographic races. These are : Atlantic and Mediterranean Californian Japanese equivalent 1. Aryonaiita piicifii-a Arc/otutuia orgo Argonaiita (irgo 2. Galifeuthis phi/Uura GaliieiiihiH ainiatci Galiieuthin aniiata 3. Ocyihoe tuherculaia Ocyfhoe inhen-iihtld Ocythoe fiiberculata 4. Ohiroteiifhis cf. rcrdiu/i __ Chirofeiithis rernni/i In two instances the Californian forms have separate specific names. Argonauta pacifica, the actual position of which is still to be estab- lished, was named by Dall in 1871. It is not really rare, but so great has been the demand from curio dealers and shell collectors that com- plete specimens are apt to be ]iosted at exorbitant prices. Whatever else their fate, not a single complete adidt example has been studied and reported upon by a ciualified student of the group. We are still without either an amplification of Ball's inconclusive description or a critical comparison with any related forms from other regions. Origin- ally Galitcuihis pliyllura was named (Berry, 1911: 592; 1912: 315) because our knowledge of the old-world species was imperfect and it did not seem quite safe to unite forms so widely sundered geographic- ally (the Japanese representative was not known in 1912) without sound supporting data. Since then, European students, with additional 1 Submitted for publication November 1962. (128) DORATOPSIS LARVA OFF CALIFORNIA 129 Atlantic and Mediterranean material have been practically unani- mous ill their inability to discover valid differentiating features among the aniiata-Wke forms. Possibly the capture and study of much more material will eonfirm or refute their absolute conspecificity, but there remains snuill doubt that anj- differentiation between the forms of the two oceans iiiiist be slight at best. Ocijthue iubcrculaia l\afines(iue is a spectacular pelagic animal which is rather infre(|uently cneountered yet is widespread in the warmer seas. As the only recognized species of its genus and group it stands (piitc alone, its nearest affinity being with pa])er nautili (Argonauta) . Berry (1955) gives an account of the west American occurrence of OcytJwe for those interested. The fourth species, hitherto unrecorded from (nir area, is the princi- pal subject of this paper. A snudl, very elongate, transparent squid, taken in ]~)laiil\ton sonunvhei-i" oft" southern California by collectors from Scripps Institution for Biological Kesearch in 1916, was the first known Pacific capture of the strange larval ' ' genus ' ' Doratopsis, or any mem- ber of the family Chiroicuihidae from the west coast of North America. It was of such interest and import that a note Avould have been pub- lished long ago except that some of the staff then at the Institution thought they had obtained and preserved a similar form in some num- bers previously. In view of this, they thought it best to defer publica- tion on the chance this supposed additional material might come to light. Unhappily it never has. Thus, in spite of serious deterioration of the original specimen, observations originally made upon it seem valuable enough to exhume, revise, and place on record. I hope this publication will alert collectors in a position to take them to detect further examples and thus accomplish Avhat the long and ill-advised wait has failed to do. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to the authorities of the former Scripps Institution for Biological Research (now Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California) and especially to its then director, the late William B. Bitter, for the gift of the unique specimen studied. Herbert J. Powell, now of San Marino, California, drew the sketches which add so greatly to this report. Carl Ij. Ilubbs kindly read the first draft of the manuscript and made some valuable suggestions. HISTORICAL SUMMARY One of the most bizarre and strangely-formed of oceanic squids, the species first was made known by Ferussac in 1885. It is characterized by a short, conical mantle running to a point between large, cordate fins. The head is large and subpyriform. Prom it spring the usual eight slender arms (the ventral pair relatively very large and bearing a string of conspicuous photophores) and a pair of exaggeratedly slender, long-stalked tentacles with lanceolately expanded, many-suckered clubs. This extraordinary creature was beautifully figured by its author and named Loligopsis Veranii, but some years later Ferussac 's col- 130 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME league, Orbigny, (1845:377) signalized its unique position by estab- lishing for it the genns Chiroteuthis.^ In 1844 a small, transparent, elongate sqnidlet of altogether different appearance was obtained at Messina by Riippell and described as Lolkjopsis vermicolaris. More fnlly described and figured by Verany in 1851, it was made the type of a new genus, Doratopsis, by Roche- brune in 1884. Specimens from the Bay of Naples were described in greater detail by Jatta in 1896. Examples of varying age led Ficalbi (1899) to advance the idea that Doratopsis vermicnlaris is not a mature squid but a larval stage of Chiroteuthis veranyi, although he was unable to demonstrate the actual transformation. In 1900 Ficalbi 's hypothesis found a powerful opponent in the great German teuthologist, Pfeffer, only to be reasserted (1902) by its propositor, who found an able sup- porter in another German savant, Chun (1910:297-298). In rebuttal, each answered seriatim the points made by Pfeffer. Pfeffer asserted his position even more vigorously in 1912. More recently, fresh Mediter- ranean material led the Italian zoologist, Issel (1920; 1927), to follow Ficalbi and Chun. His additional evidence greatly strengthens their case, and though the specimens so far captured may not completely bridge the gap between the oldest known "Doratopsis" and the young- est unquestionable Chiroteuthis, all present workers seem to agree upon five points respecting their relationship : 1) No true "Doratopsis" found has been sexuaUy mature, the in- ternal organs sharing the juvenile aspect of most of the external structures. 2) Doratopsis and Chiroteuthis are enough alike in fundamental morphology to be safely placed in the same family. 3) Relative to the remaining arms, both ventral ones attain a similar enormous development. 4) Several described "species" of Doratopsis, notably D. vermicu- laris and the curious little Leptoteuthis or Doratopsis diaphana (Ver- rill), often show a series of conspicuous photogenic organs on the oral a.spect of the ventral arms in a position corresponding to those in Chiroteuthis. 5) There are paired intrapallial photophores in both forms in the region of the ink-sac. The evidence outlined, if not absolutely conclusive, is well integrated and surely very strong as far as it goes. AVhether all nominal species presently referred to "Doratopsis" are strictly congeneric and juvenile representatives of corresponding species of Chiroteuthis s. s. is quite another question and perhaps open to some pardonable doubt. In any event, Doratopsis is taxonomically a full genus or it is nothing, and the removal of its type-species into the absolute synonymy of Chiroteuthis veranyi must necessarily leave these 'The date of first publication of tlie genus ChiroteutMs is usually given as 1839, a year during which part of the plates of the "Histoire" were Issued including the one carrying this name. This is upon the authority of d'Orbigny himself (1845: 375, 377), but it has never been shown beyond peradventure of doubt that this issuance actually constituted valid publication within the meaning of the Interna- tional Code. According to the data given by Winckworth (1942:34-36) the "Mol- lusques vivants et fossiles" (1845) contains the earliest publication of the genus which we can claim with certainty. DORATOPSIS LARVA OFF CALIFORNIA .131 remaining' species ^\■itlloul any claim to I lie name. Nor can we revive for them the cognate name HyaloteufJiis Pfeffer, for that was based upon the same generitype as Doratopsis and must share the same fate. Furthermore, both IInalotcKthis Pfeffer and Lfj)fnfeiitJiif< Verrill are still-born homonyms (lloyle, 188():4;J). At present no other generic name seems available for them. In view of the uncertainty which con- tinues to enshroud the later stages of their life-history, it would be clearly unwise to clutter the literature with yet another generic name, especially since the definition of the larval "genus", Planctotcuthis Pfeffer, possibly could be amplified sufficiently to harbor them as a temporary expedient. I quite agree with Kobson that systematists poorly serve science Avhen they encumber it by applying new generic or specific names to known larval stages or doubtful juveniles. PRINCIPAL SYNONYMY Chirofeuthis veranyi (Ferussac 1835) Orbigny 1845 (Adult) 1S3.J. LoViyopsis Yi'vanii Ferus.sac, — Mag. do Zdol., (CI. 5) : pi. (kI. 184.J. Chirotetithis Veranyi Orbigny, — Moll. viv. et foss. : 877 ; pi. 24. 1S4S. LoJiiiopsis Yeriniii Orhigny, — Ceph. acet. ; Calinaret ( Jjolu/opsis ) pi. 2. 1S4S. Cliirofeiifhis Tcrdin/i Orl)igny, — id.: 325; LoUgopsh pi. 4, figs. 17-23 1851. Loligopsis Veranyi \6va\\y, — Coph. medit. : 120 ; pis. 38-39. 1888. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Weiss, — Quart, Jour. i\Iicr. Sci., 29 :77 ; pi. 8, figs. 4-8 1899. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Ficalhi,— Mouit. Zool. Ital., 10(4) : 93-118, pi. 1, figs. 4, 7, 10, 13-15. 1900. Chiroteuthis i-craiii/i I'feffer, — Syn. ocg. ("cph. :185. 1902. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Ficalhi,— Mouit. Zool. Ital., 13(2) : 37-39. 1908. Chiroteuthis reranyi Watkiusou, — Jena, Zeitschr. Naturw.. 44: .".04. 375, 377, 391, 393, text figs. 19, 20, 211, 35 (olfactory orgau). 1910. Chirotetithis Veranyi Chun,— Oegops. Valdivia Exp. : 240, 281 ; pi. 40, fig. 1 ; 42, fig. 5; 44, figs. 1,2,4, 5. 1912. Chiroteuthis Veranyi Veranyi Pfeffer, — Monogr. Oegops.: 543, 544, 547, 552, .V.<>, 558. 559, 563, 569, 584, 588, 590, 591, 593, 59 //-606, 607, 608, 789, 794 ; pis. 44-45. (Juvenile) "Doratopsis vermicularis" (Rijppeli 1844) 1844. LoJifiopsis Vermicolaris Riippell, — Gioru, C!ab. ^Messina, Auu. 3, T. 5 (F. 27-28) : 133 [5] (fes/e Ficalhi) . 1S51. Ijoliyopsis vermicularis Verany, — Ceph. uiedit. : 12."!, ])1. 40, figs, a, h. 1884. Doratopsis i-erniicularis Rochehrune, — P>ull. Soc. Philomath. Paris, ser. 7, 8 : 18, 19 [12, 13]. 1884. Doratopsis Riippelli Knchcl)rune,— id.. 19 |i:'>|. 1884. Leptoteuthis rermicolaris Verrill, — Trans. Conn. xVc. Sc, 6(1) :143. 1884. Hyaloteuthis rermicularis I'feffer,-— Ahh. Nat. Yer. Hamburg, S (1) : 22, 28, pi. 3, fig. 30. 1886. Doratopsis vermiiiihiris llnvle, — Ceph. Challenger Exp.; 43, footnote, 179, 217. 189(i. Doratopsis rerinirularis .Tatta, — Ceph. viv. Colfo Xaiioli : 108, i)l. 7, fig. 22; pi. 14, figs. 1-9. 1899. Doratopsis verinicuhiris Ficalhi. — ]\I()uit. Zool. Ital., 10 (3) : 80, 83 (after Riippell ) . 1899. Chiroteuthis Veranyi, juv. Ficalhi,— id. (4) : 93-118, pi. 1, figs. 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9,11,12. 132 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME 1900. Doiaiopsis vermiriiUuin Pt'effer, — Syn. oes- Ceph. : 184. 186. 1902. Chiroteiithis TeraHiji. jiiv., Ficalhi, — Moiiit. Zool. Ital., 13 (2) : 37. 1910. Doidioijsi.^ rennii-iihiri.s Chun, — Oej;ops. Valdivia Exp.: 28;"). 288, 29:>. pi. 47. figs. 3-4. 1912. Chiroteiithis ( Doratopsis ) i-er»iici(l(iris Pfeft'er. — Moiiojir. Oegops. : 543, .■')47, 5.f,S-550, 551, 554, 555-569, 581, 789 ; pi. 46, fig.s. 1-5, 8-12. 1920. Chiroteiithis Yerani/i. inv.. Issel,— R. Com. Talass. Ital., Mem. 73: 9. pi., figs. 8-12. 1920. Chiroteiithis Venniyi. juv., Issel, — id., Mem. 76: 11, pi., fig. 9 (cephalic pig- mentation) . 1925. Chiroteiithis (Doratopsis) verani/i, juv.. Degner, — Ceph. Dan. Oceanogr. Exp., 2 ( Biol. ) . C. 1 : 48, 89. 1927. Chiroteiithis veriinyi (Doratopsis vermiciilaris) I-ssel, — Ann. Idrogr., 11 (2) :3, 5, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 17; pi. 1. figs. 1-3. 5; pi. 2. figs. 8, 10. 1931. Toroteitthis reriniciilaris Tomlin, — Proc. Malac. Soc. London. 19 (4) : 175. DESCRIPTION OF CAUFORNIAN SPECIMEN The mantle i.s membranous, elongate spindle-shaped (widest about one-fifth of its length from the anterior margin ) and less than one-sixth as wide as long. There is a gentle constriction just behind the anterior margin, while more posteriorly there is a rapid tapering to the anterior attachment of the fins, between which the mantle suffers such extreme attenuation as to constitute little more than a bare covering for the very long and slender gladius. The fins are about two-fifths as long as the mantle and almost perfectly circular with a conspicuous crescentic emargination in front (Figures 1, 2) projecting the fin on either side into a prominent angular lobe. The fleshy part of the fins shows a similar but s^raller and nar- rower emargination posteriorly. Here the resulting embayment is partly or entirely filled in by a thin transparent membrane. At its edges the anterior emargination show^s some traces of the possible former presence of a similar membrane. The gladius is produced posteriorly past the fins for some distance as a narrow rod-like structure, but has evidently been partly broken away in this example, so it is impossible to assert the presence of a supplementary fin. However, the persisting stump shows ragged traces of a narrow membrane along its sides. The head (Figure 3), including the neck, is small, narrow, and ex- traordinarily lengthened. It is divisible into three distinct sections: a long, membranous, transparent, quite evenly tubular nuchal i)ortion. somewhat narrower than the anterior part of the mantle, and showing traces of a rather regular recurrent transverse constriction or pucker- ing ; a narrower, short, opaque, true cephalic region, the anterior half mainly composed of the small, lustrous, laterally directed eyes ; and a gently tapering, anterior, snout-like extension (rather squarish in transverse section), semitransparent, and showing outward traces of a .somewhat alveolar internal structure. The so-called olfactory organs, arising on either side of the ventral surface of the head just back of the lower part of the eyeball, are cylindrical, with elongate stalks terminating in opaque club-shaped organs and show a tendency to bend back and in toward the cephalic axis. DORATOPSIS LARVA OFF CALIFORNIA i:5;{ The arms (Figures 1, 2) are varyingiy developed, but have the order 4, ."J, 2, 1 in relative lengtl). The dorsal pair are inimite and FIGURE 1. Cbiroteuihis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): the "Dorafopsis" stage in dorsal view; x 1 Vi [571]. Although the drawings give in general an excellent idea of the appearance of the animal, the artist intended certain minor corrective changes which he never had an opportunity to carry out. For example, the fins should probably be a little wider and rounder, and the suckers on the tentacle club (Figure 5) should appear somewhat more crowded. FIGURE 2. Cbiroieuthis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): the "Dorofopsis" stage in ventral view; X 1'/2 [571]. 134 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME g*9g ^1^ FIGURE 3. Chirofeuthis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): cephalic and buccal region of "Dorofopsis" stage, ventral aspect; x 6 [571]. FIGURE 4. Chirofeufhis cf. veronyi (Ferussac): oral aspect of right ventral arm of "Doratopsis" stage; x 7 [571]. FIGURE 5. Chirofeuthis cf. verony; (Ferussac): oral aspect of sucker-bearing portion of right tentacle of "Dora/opsis" stage and its club; x 15 [571]. FIGURE 6. Chiroteuthis cf. veranyi (Ferussac): hooded tip of right tentacle-club of "Dora- topsis" stage, oral aspect; x ca. 50 [571]. slender, less than one-tenth as long as the body. The second arm-pair is somewhat better developed, being half again as long as the dorsal arms. The strongly keeled third pair is half again as long as the second. The suckers of the dorsal and all lateral arms are fairly large and closely ranked in two series. In most respects the ventral arms are conspicuously different from am' of the others (Figure 4). They are much more transparent and very long, fully three-fiftlis as long as the mantle, thus even slightly exceeding the tentacles. While the actual DORATOPSIS LARVA OFF CALIFORNIA 135 oral (sucker-bearing) face of the ventral arms is very narrow, their aiiparent widtli is incroasod by the mnch wider aboral diameter, plus a conspicuous, broad, Avcb-like keel on the outer margin of each arm. Tiiis keel is as wide as the arm proper at its widest, and several times as wide as the oral face at tiie same level. The helmet-shaped suckers of the ventral arms are biseria], but are exceedingly minute and widely si)aced. They are, however, appreciably closer together near the base and again distally than on the central portion, Avitli about 18 pairs present to tlie point of closer ranking and smaller size, or possibly 25 to 27 ]ihores on the ventral arms. Just how much weio'jit we should ^ive to any of these points is not entirely clear at i)resent. The first may be one of the proportional dif- ferences so frequently encountered in the literature pertaining' to other regions of the body, notably the neck and arms. The second is con- ceivably explained either on the around of better preservation or as a chano-e taking place with age. Tlie tliird again may be due to age, for it provides a distinct apju-oach toward the remarkable clavate organ seen in mature Chirotcufhis rerauiii, or it may be due to imperfect interpretation or delineation by some of the earlier observers. The foui'th is possibly explaiiu^d in the manner suggested for the second. The fifth may be more apparent than real, and due to the transparency of the photophores at this stage rather than to their actual absence. And there remains of course the possihility that some of these discrep- ancies, if not all, may represent g(Mnnne differential characters. Thus we are brought finally to two alternatives: either the variation of this species, in features which ordinarily show reasonable constancy in eephalopods, is great, or several distinct forms are even yet being confounded, as Joubin and others have intimated. Pfeffer, who seems to have had more material than most investigators and published volu- minously on the subject (see especially 1912: 564-569), described a variation so wide, both in general form and in the detailed proportions of constituent structures, that it would seem sheer folly to attempt to discriminate this single eastern Pacific example on the mere basis of its individual peculiarities from among so heterogeneous a complex. Pfeffer found the most reasonable explanation for so many difficulties was a more than ordinary susee])tibility of " Doratopsis" tissues to the exi- gencies of preservation. Since the tissues are among the most delicate and diff'use found among scjuids (witness here the serious deterioration of the jn-esent specimen since its capture), this suggestion well may prove to have been soundly based. Chun (1910) thought the following characters of special consequence in discriminating species of Dora- topsis: 1) position of the olfactory tub(M-(des; 2) form of eyes; 3) spacing between the sucker rows of the ventral arms; 4) form of club and presence or absence of a "Schwimmsaum." In all of these speci- fications my specimen is nothing but vermicularis. In sunnnary, we have a form which is admittedly larval with delicate tissues notoriously subject to serious alteration in preservation. Its full life-history remains to be worked out, and it is represented by very incomplete material. Therefore, I believe it wise to be frankly conservative and refrain fi'om creating a new sj)ecific or subspecific taxon until eitlun* the adult of our Pacific form has received studv or 3 Chun (1910:287) describes the corresponding region in the material studied by him in the following words : "An der aufgehellten Tentakelkeule von D. vermicularis erkenne ich nahe der Spitze auf der Aussenflache eine kleine knopfformige Verdickung des Gewebes, aus der sich sehr wohl der spatere Driisenknopf herausbilden kann." This "Verdickung des Gewebes," however, poorly pictures the delicately formed structure found by me. Indicating that Chun interpreted a certain button-like tissue-thickening observed by him near the tip of the tentacle-club as an early stage of the large dark gland (now thought photogenic) which so conspicuously adorns a corresponding position in mature Chiroteuthis. 138 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME some new and crucial evidence otherwise is found. In any event, we have a most interesting addition to the still very incompletely known cephalopod fauna of the northeastern Pacific. Likewise the species may be of some indirect economic significance, as scpiids of this group and type constitute at least part of the food of some economically valuable fishes, especially albacore. LITERATURE CITED Berry, S. S. 1911. Preliminary notices of some new Pacific cephalopods. U. S. Nat. Miis., Proc, vol. 40, p. 589-592. 1912. A review of the cephalopods of western North America. U. S. P>iir. Fish., Bull., vol. 30, p. 267-336, fiss. 1-18 ; pis. 32-56. 1916. The octopod Ocythoe in California. .Tour. Ent. and Zool., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-4, 1 fig. 1955. On recent Californian occurrences of the rare octopod Ocyihoe. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 177-181. fig. 1. Chun, C. 1910. Die Cephalopoden. 1. Teil : Oegopsida Wiss. Ergebn. Deutsch Tiefsee Exped. "Valdivia", vol. 18, 402 p., 32 figs., 2 pis.. Atlas 61 pis. Ferussac, A. E. de 1835. Note sur deux genres de cephalopodes encore pen connus, les genres cal- maret et cranchie, et sur une nouvelle espece fort remarquahle de chacun de ces deux genres. Mag. Zool., vol. (cl. 5), 10 pp., pis. 65-66. Ficalbi, E. 1899. Una pubblicazione poco conosciuta di Riippel intitolata : "Intorno ad alcuui cefalopodi del mare di Messina (Messina 1844)." Monit. Zool. Ital., 10(3) : 79-84, figs. 1-2. 1899a. Unicita di specie delle due forme di cefalopodi pelagici chiamate "Chiro- teuthis Veranyi" e "Doratopsis vermicularis." Ibid., vol. 10, no. 4, p. 93-118, pi. 1. 1902. Doratopsis vermicularis larva di Chiroteuthis veranyi. Ibid., vol. 13, no. 2, p. 37-39. Hoyle. W. E. 1886. Report on the Cephalopoda collected by H. M. S. Challenger during the vears 1873-76. Zool. Chall. Exp., vol. 16, no. 44, p. i-viii, 1-246., figs. 1-10 ; pis. 1-33. Issel. R. 1920. Primo eontributo alia conoscenza dello sviluppo nei cefalopodi Mediterranei (Thvsanoteuthis — Chiroteuthis — Galiteuthis). Com. Talassogr. Ital. Mem. 73, p. 1-19 pi. 1927. Larve di Chiroteuthis del Mediterraneo e del Golfo di Aden, con particolare reguardo alio variazione geografica. Annali Idrografici, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 1-18, pis. 1-2. Orbigny, A. d' 1845. Mollusques vivants et fossiles ou description de toutes les especes de coquilles et de mollusques classees suivant leur distribution geolgique et et geographiqiie. Paris, vol. 1, 605 p. Atlas, 35 pis. Pfeffer. G. 1900. Svnopsis der oegopsiden Cephalopoden. Mitt. Naturh. Mus. Hamb. vol. 17, p. 145-198. 1912. Die Ceplialopoden der Plankton-Expedition. Zugleieh eine nionographische ttliersicht der oegopsiden Cephalopoden. Ergel>n., Plankton-Expedition der Ilumholdt-Stiftung, 2 : i-xxi. 1-815 ; Atlas 48 pis. Rocheln-une, A. T. de 1884. Etude monographique de la famille des Loligopsidae. Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris., ser 7, vol. 8, p. 7-28 [1-22] ; pis. 1-2. Riippell, E. 1S44. Intorno ad alcuni cefalopodi del mare di Messina. G. Gabiuetto letterario :\Iessina, fasc. 27-28, ann. 3, torn, 5, p. 129-135. (Reprinted in Ficalbi, E., 1899, q. V.) DORATOPSIS LARVA OFF CALIFORNIA 139 Vt rany, J. B. IN")!, ^rnlliisquos mediterraneens, observes, decrits, figures, et chromo-lithogra- phies d'apres nature sur des modeles vivants. I. Cephalopodes de la Medi- tcrranee. (i&nes, p. i-xvi, 1-132 ; pis. 1-41. Wiiick worth, R. 1!)42. Notes on the publication of Ferussac and Orl)i{;iiy's Ilistoire des Cephalo- podes. Proc. Malac. Soc. London, 25 (1) : S4-3G. THE SEA TURTLE FISHERY OF BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO' DAVID K. CALDWELL Los Angeles County Museum INTRODUCTION Sea turtles, particularly green turtles {Chelonia mydas carrincgra Caldwell), long have provided an abundant and ready source of food for coastal inhabitants of Baja Calif oriiia (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1962; West Coast Fisheries, 1929). This is especially true for the Gulf of California shores and along the outer coast from about Scammon's Lagoon south. In the early days, passing ships, particularly whalers, were supplied with fresh meat from this abundant resource. FIGURE 1, A green sec turtle, Chelonia mydas carrinegra, from the central Gulf of California and landed at Los Angeles Bay, Baja California. Photograph by the author, February 1962. It now seems appropriate to take stock of the present and past status of the sea turtle fishery, and especially that for green turtles (Figure 1), as a point of departure for possibly developing a potentially more important source of food for the inhabitants of that arid region. 1 Submitted for publication January 1963. (140) BAJA CALIFORNIA TURTLE FISHERY 141 HISTORICAL SUMMARY Modern-day guidebooks to Baja California rarely omit mentioninfj the small but widespread green turtle fisheries, and Dawson (1944: 133) noted tliat it provided food for the Seri Indians of that region even in pre-Columbian times. While not generally considered Baja California Indians, the Seris live on the central Gulf of California island of Tiburon and might have fished further afield, into Baja California waters, in early times when they were a more widespread people than today. They were, and still are, sea turtle fishermen (Figure 2), and their ancient methods have survived and strongly influence the present- day style of fishing. McGee (1898: 186 t¥.) discussed in great detail the use of green turtles by Seris and the capture methods they used. He noted that turtles were used not only in varied ways for food, but also , . -»«*> ,.„'Xll>P» JT" ' «■ FIGURE 2. Modern Seri Indians unloading their green turtle catch in Sonora, Mexico, at the northern Gulf of California village of Desemboque. Photograph by Borys Malkin, abouf 1953- 1955, courtesy Los Angeles County Museum. that their shells were used for covering living shelters (see his Plate VII) and the flipper integument for the Seri's only known foot-gear. He also suggested that turtles were taken as they nested on beaches in the vicinity of Tiburon Island, but as yet the species involved, if indeed such nesting occurs, has not been determined by a modern herpetologist (Caldwell, 1962a), although McGee inferred it Avas the green turtle. If Seris did take nesting turtles, this would have been a seasonal source only and McGee reported many turtles were taken in the water as well. At one time, numerous green turtles were taken commercially near Magdalena Bay (Alger, 1913; Averett, 1920), Scammon's Lagoon (Walker, 1949) and San Bartolome (Turtle) Bay (Townsend, 1916: 445). In the early 1920 's, most were shipped alive to San Diego in a 2—85392 142 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME specially outfitted vessel for processing into canned soup and meat (Averett, 1920; Karmelieh, 1937). Some were shipped also to San Francisco (True, 1887: 499; Townsend, 1916: 445), and before this, some financially unsuccessful attempts were made at canning local green turtles near Magdalena Bay (Nelson, 1921: 135). Although turtles still are taken commercially as far north as San Quintin Bay, they no longer are shipped to California or appear in reports of fishery products landed in the State. Turtles landed in these areas presently find markets in Baja California, mostly locally, although I saw Magda- lena Bay turtles at a small soup factory in Ensenada during the past year. A few turtles from other outer Baja California coastal villages reach this factory as well. PRESENT FISHERY Present-day methods of harpooning turtles differ little from those employed by Seris, and account for most that are taken, although in some areas a few are captured with entangling nets or large seines, and some are taken accidentally in shrimp trawls. The harpoon fishery is pursued from small open boats (Figures 3 and 4). While outboard motors are used to propel the boats to the fishing grounds, wooden paddles still are utilized during actual fishing. The turtles generally are sought at night, and are observed with the aid of lanterns as they sleep or swim at the surface. Sometimes they are tracked by the tell-tale trail of phosphorescence they leave as they swim through the water just below the surface. FIGURE 3. A typical open boat, approximately 18 feet long, used in the central Baja California sea turtle fishery. Phofograph by fhe author, February 7 962. The fishermen usually work in pairs, and while one paddles the boat from the stern, the other wields the long harpoon from the bow. The harpoon shaft may be as long as 10 feet, and is usually made of pipe. The harpoon's metal head (Figure 5) is held onto the wooden shaft tip by a friction connection and backward pull on the harpoon line which is tightly held along the shaft by the harpooner. When a turtle is St ruck, the harpoon head comes off the shaft and the animal is plaved on the heavy attached line. The harpoon must be heaved with consid- erable force to penetrate a turtle's carapace (shell); the force is in- BAJA CALIFORNIA TURTLE FISHERY 143 FIGURE 4. Interior of a turtle boat. Note harpoons across the seats along the starboard side, and line for tying turtles stowed on the port side. Pbofograph by fhe auihor, February 1962. creased by the weight of the heavy pipe shaft. To prevent serious in- jury to turtles, which often must be kept alive for several weeks, the short shaft of the harpoon head behind the barbs is encircled with rubber or leather washers which limit its penetration ; the barbs only sink in far enough to secure the animal without damaging vital organs. The resulting hole is usually plugged with cloth or thick mud. Har- pooners attempt to hit turtles in the posterior region to decrease the chance of mortal injury. The same-sized harpoon head is used for all species and sizes of turtles. In the case of green turtles, the most com- mon species captured, the smallest normally taken is about 18 inches in carapace length and the largest is some 40 inches. I have seen one dried carapace that measured nearly 43 inches. Even huge trunkbacks (Dermochelys coriacea), which attain carapace lengths of 6 feet and a weight of 1,500 pounds, are taken with this same-sized harpoon. After capture, the turtles are tied up to prevent them from flapping about and are laid on the floorboards of the boat (Figure 6). The fisher- men may stay out as long as 2 weeks, fishing at night and landing on 144 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME i:*\*\ '" *v iax *i'",j».*; ••\ «!- m^^- FIGURE 5. Typical harpoon head as used in the Baja California sea turtle fishery. Upper: In position on the wooden end of the long metal shaft. Lower; Head off the shaft as it is after a turtle is struck. Phofograph by fhe author, March 1961. a nearby shore to sleep during the day. When fishing is exceptionally good, a larger vessel sometimes is dispatched to the fishing grounds to bring in the combined catches from a number of the small boats. Usually, however, the fishermen are ready to return to home base for recreation after about a week and they bring in their own turtles, sometimes as many as 30 or 40 in a dangerously overloaded boat. The turtles are then untied and released belly up, thereby identifying them as new arrivals. Later they are placed belly down on the sand floor of a shaded pen near the water's edge (Figures 7 and 8) and kept until needed. In winter, they may be held as long as 2 weeks with few deaths, but in the hot summer months death may ensue in 3 or 4 days. BAJA CALIFORNIA TURTLE FISHERY 145 FIGURE 6. A load of live green turtles in the bottom of o turtle boat at Los Angeles Bay. Turtles are tied to prevent them from injuring themselves. Pbofograph by tfie author, February 1962. Perhaps because the climate is warmer, turtles landed in the southern part of Baja California often are kept in pens built in the water or on tidal flats that are flooded with up to several feet of water each day. Carr (1961: 67) found that turtles captured around the central Gulf of California islands, and landed on the Mexican mainland, were being trucked to San Diego. Malkin (1962: 23) found that turtles captured by Seri Indians often were sold alive to Mexican fish traders headquar- tered in Nogales and Hermosillo, who shipped them along with fish as far as Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. However, I found that the green FIGURE 7. Rude pen at Los Angeles Bay used to keep live turtles. Pen is located near the water's edge for convenience of the fishermen and the attendant who must douse the turtles with water several times each day. Phofograph by ihe auihor, February 1962. 146 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME turtles presently landed in Baja California, many from those same central Gulf fishing grounds, are consumed either locally or trucked alive or as salted and air-dried meat to markets in larger towns on the peninsula. In the summer of 1962, trucks from the Gulf of California village of Los Angeles Bay turned back rather than enter the United States when they could not find a market for their turtles in Ensenada, Tijuana, or Mexicali. Such long trips over rough roads, particularly in summer, often result in the death of almost an entire load of turtles. In these cases, or when turtles die in the holding pens, they are cut up when freshly dead and the meat salted and dried for human consump- tion. My investigations showed no evidence of present-day turtle canning in Baja California. However, Parsons (1962:75) reported a turtle-soup FIGURE 8. Inside a pen filled with live green turtles at Los Angeles Bay. Photograph by the author, February 1962. cannery has been working in recent years at Asuncion Bay. While in the area, Kenneth E. Stager of the Los Angeles County Museum was informed in March 1963, that a seafood cannery, which included sea turtles among its products, was operating on Santa Margarita Isl. near Magclalena Bay. Parsons was informed that the Asuncion canner's product was used almost exclusively in Baja California; Stager could not find where the Margarita products were sold. I found two soup and turtle stew factories in Ensenada, but appar- ently their product is sold only over the counter. Similar establishments probably occur in all Baja California cities where sea turtles are read- ily available. Some of the oil skinmied off the soup pot in Ensenada is saved for medicinal purposes. Craig (1926: 167) related that sea turtles landed at San Felipe, in the northwestern Gulf of California, were taken pri- BAJA CALIFORNIA TURTLE FISHERY 147 rnai'ily for their oil, altlion,o-h some of the rendered meat was salted and dried for food. Giral and Cascajares (1948: 177) noted that as lon<4' ago as Colnmbns's time, Mexican turtle oils had supposed therapeutic value for huniaii attlictions of the chest, especially tuberculosis and leprosv. A similar use was ex])ressed to me in 1962 at Ensenada. Giral (1948), Giral and Marquez (1948) and Giral et al. (1948) in a series of short papers discussed the composition of various Mexican sea turtle oils. The flesh of male turtles is said to have a purgatory effect on humans. However, before I heard this, during a general inquiry at Los Angeles Bay about the relative merits of male and female turtles, I was told only that females were preferred because of the taste and texture of their flesh, and that immature turtles of either sex were equallv good. TABLE 1 Seasonal Size Distribution of Four Samples of the Northeastern Pacific Green Sea Turtle, Chelonia mydas cartinegra, from the Central Gulf of California and Landed at Los Angeles Bay, Baja California, Mexico. Sexes Combined March June Fehnianj Jinic-Juli/ 1961 1961 1962 1962 R;in«!:e of Carapace Length ( inches) ^ 18|-36i 19f-36* 19i-35^ 17i-3Si Moan Carapace Length ( inches) = 26 264 264 26 Number of Individuals 113 232 291 513 Days of Observation 7 5 7 21 Average Number of Individuals per Day of Observation 16 46 41 24 Numl)er of I'urtle I'ens in Operation^ 2 4 4 3 Number of Turtles per Day of Observation per Pen ^ 1 8 12 10 8 1 Measured to the nearest J inch in accord with Carr and Caldwell (1956: 4) - Rounded to nearest J inch ^Suggests degree of fishing pressure (see text) * Numher of turtles actually not evenly-distiibuted among pens, but tliis figure gives a relative abundance of turtles for the seasonal sample Most green turtles now landed in Baja California come from the central and southern Gulf of California. I saw over 500 landed during a 3-week summer period in 1962 at Los Angeles Bay alone, and a comparable number, considering fishing effort, per week in winter (Table 1). The number of turtle pens in operation is used as an index of fishing effort. An inactive pen means the fishermen who work for that pen operator are engaged in some other activity; they are not merely fishing for some other operator (i.e., fewer pens in operation mean fewer fishermen are working and fishing effort is lower). Re- corded turtles were marked or segregated so they w^ould not be counted more than once. The means and ranges of carapace length also were consistent in four samples taken in both winter and summer during two consecutive years (Table 1). Fishermen say turtles are harder to find in winter as they are less active and in deeper water. The weather also limits the fishermen's activities ; however, turtles are present in good numbers all year and the fishery does not close except when compelled to do so by Mexican law. Such a closure occurred in the early fall of 1961 when Mexican authorities experimentally imposed a short closed season on all sea 148 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME turtles. Several thousand turtles are landed at Los Angeles Bay each year where, along with tourists, they form the economy of the area. It is the same at other villages, where turtles often are the sole source of income. BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION Little is known of the biology of Pacific Mexican green turtles and even less about other turtle species taken there. The present knowledge of the herbivorous (algae feeding) green turtle in Baja California re- cently was presented in some detail by Caldwell (1962a, 1962b). A brief summary is given here to make the reader aware of what is not known and thus be on the alert for needed information. Data on nest- ing activity are particularly needed for suggesting conservation practices. In Baja California, green turtles, or cagnamas, occur along the en- tire length of both coasts, although the major fisheries for them are limited approximately to the waters of the lower three-fourths of the peninsula. AVhile there are nebulous references to green turtle nesting on many beaches along southern Baja California, and in the Gulf of California, there are no positive modern data on the subject. Green turtles do nest far to the south on beaches of the mainland Mexican State of Michoacan, and are said to nest at Socorro Island (Caldwell, 1962a). Nesting is also reported at Clarion Island (Brattstrom, 1955: 220; John E. Fitch, pers. commun.) ; however, green turtles in these three areas may belong to a different subspecies than those of Baja Cali- FIGURE 9. Ventral aspect of female (left) and male (right) green turtles from the central Gulf of California. Note the dark color of the plastrons (undersides) typical of Cbelonia mydas corrinegra, and the comparative lengths of the tails. Photograph by the author, February 7962. te BAJA CALIFORNIA TURTLE FISHERY 149 fornia (the olive-colored Chel07iia my das agassizi Bocourt occurs south of the peniusula, and the recently-described, almost black, C. m. carri- negra Caldwell occurs in the Gulf of California and along the Pacific Coast north of Cape San Lucas). Where and when Baja California green turtles nest is not known for certain. Individuals of both sexes (Figure 9) and of breeding size apparently occur in sufficient numbers to account for a large population, at least along the central and south- ern Baja California shores. Nesting areas usualh' are determined by observing nesting turtles or the tank-like tracks they leave on the beach as they crawl out and back when burying their eggs in the sand, high on the shore. Copu- lating turtles in the water are usually evidence of nesting activity nearby, and hatchling turtles on the beach are positive proof. While observing turtles as they nest is the most desirable way to identify the species involved, it is sometimes possible to determine this by other means: (1) eggs may be hatched in the laboratory, (2) barriers may be placed around nest sites to retain young turtles as they hatch, (3) interviews may be held Avith local residents and descriptions of the nesting turtles obtained, and (4) refuse heaps may be found and examined for identifiable remains of turtles taken while nesting. "^o- CONSERVATION PRACTICES Although the green turtle fishery in Baja California is an old one, no serious attempts have been made to study it from the standpoint of proper utilization under fisheries management procedures. The present condition of the fishery probably does not warrant restricting the num- ber of free-swimming turtles harvested. However, note should be made of the overfished and depleted population of the Caribbean green turtle (Carr, 1954) and measures should be taken in Baja California to pre- vent such depredation there. The loss of the green turtle in Baja Cali- fornia would constitute a serious hardship to the people of this eco- nomically poor area. Therefore, when the nesting grounds of these turtles are discovered, immediate steps should be taken to prevent the harvesting of nesting females or eggs. Detailed data on length-weight relationships and luimbers of each size of green turtle taken in the fishery are available (Caldwell, 1962b) and I hope these data will prove useful if it becomes necessary to man- age the sea turtle fishery. Although the other sea turtle species taken in the Baja California fishery are of much less economic importance, the same conservation practices should be considered for them as well. Turtles of all species frequently are taken by accident in the bottom trawls used in the Gulf of California shrimp fishery. John E. Fitch, California Department of Fish and Game, informs me he has seen as many as nine turtles taken in a single haul. Whether or not they reach the surface alive depends on how long they have been trapped under- water. It has been my experience that in the Atlantic coast shrimp fishery only about half, or fewer, survive. The loss is unavoidable, and probably is not of great biological importance to the turtle population. Dead or alive, most of the turtles so taken are returned to the water, except for the occasional one retained for food by the boat crew. How- 150 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME ever, the meat is still fresh, and shrimp fishermen should be encouraged to utilize it themselves or butcher the carcasses and refrigerate the meat for sale along with the shrimp. FISHERY FOR OTHER SEA TURTLE SPECIES Four other kinds of sea turtles are utilized in Baja California ; I found no evidence that an}- species is not retained if captured. The only turtles not kept are very small ones (15 to 20 pounds or less) which are not seen in the markets or pens. The fishermen state positively that they see small ones, but do not bother to harpoon them. Hawksbills (Eret^nochelys), a more tropical form, are taken frequently in the southern-most waters otf the peninsula, especially near La Paz. They are utilized both for food and for their colorful shells, the tortoise shell of commerce. Some ridleys {Lepidochelys), trunkbaeks and apparently a few loggerheads (Caretta) are taken for food along the length of both coasts of the peninsula (Caldwell, 1962a). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Aiitero Diaz of Los Angeles Baj^ and Eriberto Arce and David Pringle of Ensenada for much information on the present Baja California green turtle fishery. Melba C. Caldwell made many constructive remarks concerning vari- ous stages of the manuscript. Support for field work in Baja California came in part from the Los Angeles County Museum and the Museum Associates, and from funds made available to the Museum by the American Foundation for Ocean- ography. LITERATURE CITED Alser. W. E. 1913. Greeu turtles in Lower California. In U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domes- tic Commerce, Daily Consular and Trade Reports, no. 55, p. 1181, March 6. Averett. W. E. 1920. Lower California green turtle fishery. Pac. Fisherman, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 24-25. Brattstrom, Bayard H. 19.55. Notes on the herpetology of the Revillagigedo Islands, ^Mexico. Amer. Midi. Nat., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 219-229. Caldwell, David K. 1962a. Sea turtles in Baja Calif ornian waters (with special reference to those of the Gulf of California ) , and the description of a new subspecies of north- eastern Pacific green turtle. Los Angeles County Mus., Contrib. Sci., no. 61, pp. 1-31. 1962b. Carapace length — body weight relationship and size and sex ratio of the northeastern Pacific sea turtle, Chelonia mydas carrinegra. Los Angeles County Mus., Contrib. Sci., no. 62, pp. 1-10. Caldwell, David K., and Melba C. Caldwell 1962. The black "steer" of the Gulf of California. Los Angeles County Mus., Quarterly, Sci. and Hist., vol. 1. no. 1, pp. 14-17. Carr, Archie 1954. The passing of the fleet. Amer. Inst. Biol. Sci., Bull., vol. 4, pp. 17-19. 1961. Pacific turtle problem. Nat. Hist., vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 64-71. Carr, Archie, and David K. Caldwell 1956. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 1. Results of field work in Florida, 1955. Amer. Mus. Nov., no. 1793, pp. 1-23. BAJA CALIFORNIA TURTLE FISHERY 151 1926. A now fishery in ^Mexico. Calif. Fish and Oanie, vol. 11'. no. 4, \>\k 1(;C.-16!). Daw.son, E. Yale 1944. Some ethnohotanical notes on the Seri Indians. Desert I'lant Life, vol. IG, no. 9. pp. 133-138. Oii-al, Francisco 1945. Mexican tnrtle t>ils, IV. Lepidoclich/ti oUrdrcd Esch. Arch. liiocheni., vol. K;, pp. 191-193. (liral, Francisco, and Maria Luisa Cascajares 1948. Mexican turtle oils, I. Arch. Biochem., vol. Ki, pp. 177-179. (Jiral, Francisco, and Andres Marquez 1948. Mexican turtle oils, III. Carvttu curclin Linn. Arch. Uiocheni., vol. IG, pp. 187-189. Ciral, Jose, Francisco Giral and ]\Iavia Luisa Giral 194S. Mexican turtle oils, II. Chelone mi/dua Linn. Arch. Biochem., vol. IG, pp. 181-186. Karmelich, Katherine 1937. Turtles. In The commercial fish citch of California for (he year 1935. Calif. Div. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 49. pp. 122-123. McGee, W. J. 1S9S. The Seri Indians. U. S. Bur. Amer. Ethnology, 17th Ann. Kept, (for 1895-96), pp. 1-344. Malkin, Borys 19G2. Seri ethnozoolosy. Idaho St. Coll. Mus., Occ. Pap., no. 7, GS ]i]i. Nelson, Edward AV. 1921. Lower California and its natural resources. Natl. Acad. Sci., Mem., \ol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-194. Parsons. James J. 1962. The green turtle and man. Gainesville, Univ. Florida Press, 12G pp. Townsend, Charles H. 1916. Voyage of the ''Albatross" to the Gulf of (\-ilifornia in 1911. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull., vol. 35, art. 24, pp. 399-476. True, Frederick W. 1887. The turtle and terrapin fisheries. In G. Brown Goode, et al., The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States. Sec. 5, History and methods of the fisheries, vol. 2, pt. 19. pp. 493-503. Wash., Govt. Print. Off. Walker, Lewis W. 1949. Nursery of the gray whales. Nat. Hist., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 248-256. West Coast Fisheries 1929. The last stand of the turtle. West Coast Fish., p. 8, Sept. TRAWLING IN THE MONTEREY BAY AREA, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CATCH COMPOSITION' RICHARD F. G. HEIMANN Marine Resources Operations California Department of Fish and Game INTRODUCTION Trawl fishing has always caused considerable controversy among people concerned with the resources of the sea. On the one hand, many people regard this fishery, for which only limited detailed information is available, with suspicion. On the other hand, trawling is quite efficient and produces bottomfish catches at less cost than any other method. To meet the need for factual information on trawling in the Monterey Bay area, the California Department of Fish and Game initiated a 1-year study in 1960. This paper presents the results of that study. The Monterey Bay area trawling grounds, extending from Pigeon Point to Point Sur (Figure 1), are fished almost exclusively by trawlers from Monterey and Moss Landing. At times, these vessels have worked outside this area and San Francisco trawlers occasionally have entered the fishery. These extralimital movements of vessels are so insignificant that trawling by the Monterey Bay fleet is considered representative of the fishery. In any fishery, more fish are taken at sea than are brought ashore. Some fish are discarded because they are shorter than either legal size or desired market size, or have no market value. Unusable fish normally are discarded by the fishermen and not enumerated. A knowledge of total catch was vital in understanding this fishery. To describe total catch, data were needed to show species and amounts discarded. This information, plus species and amounts landed, gives a comprehensive picture of the fishery. A program at sea was instigated to obtain information on discarded fish and consisted of biweekly sampling aboard various trawlers from Monterey and Moss Landing. Sixteen trips were made between March and November 1960. Each tow was examined and species, amounts and sizes of fish discarded were recorded. This information, combined with records of market landings for each trip, formed the basis for this re- port. Fifty-three species representing 23 families were encountered (Table 1). Common names in this report follow Koedel (1962). 1 Submitted for publication January 1963. (152) MONTEREY BAY TRAWLING 153 TRAWLING GROUNDS PIGEON POINT-POINT SUR , CALIFORNIA f^T:* SHALLOW-WATER GROUNDS rT-l INTERMEDIATE - DEPTH GROUNDS (^>i?:i DEEP-WATER GROUNDS '^.-:Vr^'.'ig^-;M'l4-.'( MOSS LANDING FIGURE 1. Principal trawling grounds in the Monterey Boy area. DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY General Eight trawlers, based at iMonterey Bay ports, fished during 19GU, but only five worked consistently throughout the year. Fuur to seven fished during any one month. TABLE 1 Common and Scientific Names of Species Observed in Monterey Bay Area Trawl Catches Family Scyliorhinidae— cat sharks Brown cat shark Apristurus hrunneus (Gilbert) Filetail cat shark Parmaturus xaniurus (Gilbert) 154 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Family Carcharhinidae— requiem sharks Soupfin shark Galeorhinus zyopferus Jordan & Gilbert Family Squalidae— dogfish sharks Spiny (logtish iSqualus acanfhins Linnaons Family Torpedinidae— electric rays Pacific electric ray Torpedo cnlifonrica Ayres Family Rajidae— skates Sandpaper skate Breviraja kincaidi (Garman) Big skate Raja hhwculafa. Girard California skate Raja iiioniafa Jordan & Gilbert Longnose skate Raja rh'nia Jordan & Gilbert Starry skate Raja stelliilala Jordan »& Gilbert Family Chimaeridae— chimaeras Ratfish HiidroUifiu^ colliei (Lay & Bennett) Family Clupeidae— herrings American shad Alosa sapidissima (Wilson) Pacific herring Clupea palla.si Valenciennes Family Gadidae— codfishes and hakes Pacific hake Merlticcius iirnd iid us (Ayres) Family Carangidae— jacks, scads and pompssnes Jack mackerel 'I'l-acJi iiriis syni Diciricus (Ayres) Family Sciaenidae— croakers White croaker Genijoneiii iis Ihicai iis (Ayies) Family Embiotocidae— surfperehes Pile perch Rhacochllns luicca (Girard) Pink seaperch Zalcmhius rosai-eiis (Joi-dan & Gilbert ) Family Scorpaenidae— rockfishes Aurora rockfish Sehastodes aiiront ((Jillicrt) Greenspotted rockfish Sehasfodes chlorostictiis (Jordan & Gill>ei-t) Darkblotehed rockfish Sehastodes era uieri J ordun Splitnose rockfish Sehastodes diploproa (Gilbei-t) Greenstriped rockfish Sehastodes elongatiis (Ayres) Widow rockfish ^-Sehastodes enfoiiielas (Jordan & (iill)ei-t ) Yellowtail rockfish Sehastodes jiavidiis Ayres Chilipepper ^_ Sehastodes goodei Eigenmann & Eigenmann Shortbelly rockfish Sehastodes jordani Gilbert Cow rockfish Sehastodes levis (Eigenmann & Eigenmann) Blackgill rockfish Sehastodes melanostonuis Eigenmann & Eigennninn Vermilion rockfish Sehastodes niiuiatus (Jordan »& Gilbert ) Speckled rockfish Sehastodes oralis Ayves Bocaccio Sehastodes paucispinis (Ayres) Canary rockfish Sehastodes piiiiiiffer (Jordan & Gilbert) Stripetail rockfish Sehastodes saxicola (Gilbert) Sharpchin rockfish Sehastodes zacentrus (Gilbert) Shortspine channel rockfish Sehastolohus alascanus Bean Family Anoplopomatidae— sablefishes Sablefish A iioplopoitia fimhria (Pallas) Family Hexagrammidae— greenlings Lingcod Ophiodon eloiii/atiis Girard Family Zaniolepidae— combfishes Longspine combfish Zaniolepis latipiniiis Girard MONTEREY HAY TRAWLING 155 Family Cottidae— sculpins Thrcadfin sculiiiii Iccliiiii.s liidiiiiiiidsus (Jillicrl Fairily Agonidae— poachers I'uaclu'rs iml iilcnl ificd to sjiccii's Family Anarhichadidae— wolffishes Wolf-eel AiKinlii'-lilli i/s Dfilliitus \yres Family Zoarcidae— eelpouts Eelpouts not i(lentifi('(l to species Family Ophidiidae— cusk-eels Spotted ousk-eel Otophidiii m tai/lori ((Jiriird) Family Bothidae— lefteye flounders Paeific sanddal) Ciilt(iricliflii/,s sordiihts ((Jirai'd) Family Pleuroneetidae— righteye flounders Petrale sole IJajisctta jordani I I.oekinj;toii ) Rex sole Ghjpiocephahis zachirus Lockinsitoii Rock sole L('i)idoi)setfn hiliiieafa (Ayres) Slender sole Li/op-sefta r.i-ilis (Jordan & Gilbert) Dover sole llicrosiomun pacificus (Lockington) English sole Parophrys vetulus Girard Curltin liirhot Pleitronichthj/s decurreiis (Jordan & (iilhert) Family Batrachoididae— toadfishes I'laiutin niidsliipnian Porirhtli i/s iiotntus CJirard The fleet's size and activities in 1958 and lOoO Avere about the same as for 3960. Tn 1956, however, 14 boats trawled, with 6 to 13 operating in any one month, while during 1954, 17 vessels operated at one time or another. The number of active vessels depended on demand and price for trawl fish, availability of various species, and conditions in alter- nate fisheries that might attract fishermen. This change in size of the trawl fleet is reflected by the effort ex- pended. Total fishing days rose during the period 1951 through 1954, dropped in 1955, increased to an all-time high in 1956 and then de- creased each year through 1960 (Figure 2). During the decade 1951 to 1960, trawl landings rose from 2.0 million pounds in 1951 to 5.8 million in 1954, dipped to 4.7 million in 1955 and then rose to the all-time high of 7.3 million pounds in 1956. tSubse- ({uently, the catch from this area declined to 3.4 million pounds in 1959 and remained there in 1960 (Figure 2). The paralleling fluctua- tions in effort (days fished) and total catch indicate that catch was more dependent on fishing effort than availability or abundance of fish. That is, increased effort produced greater catches. During this 10-year period, catch-per-day showed a rising trend, largelj' independent of effort or total catch (Figure 2). In fact, catch- per-day in the low-catch year, 1960, was higher than during the peak- catch years 1954 and 1956. A fishery with a rising catch-per-day and Avith total catch dependent primarily on effort should be in good condition. However, catch-per-day varies markedly in different areas, on differ- ent boats, and for different species. If any change occurs in the fleet's 156 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME OH m H "DO > o -no m > -I H -n H J) H n > o > I o X r- n r I H g I (1000 (DAVSXPOUNDS) POUNDS) 70 00 21 50 40 30 TOTAL CATCH TOTAL EFFORT CATCH - PER - DAY 00 42 00 16 00 12 00 9 00 J 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 00 00 00 00 6 1351 1953 1956 1959 FIGURE 2. Total catch, total days fished, and catch per day from Pigeon Point to Point Sur, California, 1951 through 1960. composition or in fishing methods, a change may occnr in catch-per-day that does not reflect the actual condition of the fish stocks. We must examine catch composition through these years to evaluate catch-per- day. Species Landed Since trawlers catch several marketable species, landing statistics of the entire fleet become complex. Fundamental information comes to light if the species with yearly landings of 150,000 pounds or more are considered (Figure 3). Prior to 1950, rockfish were of only minor importance in the trawl catch. Their increased utilization in the past 10 years has been the principal factor influencing the fishery's rapid expansion. Since 1950, the combined catch of all rockfish species has dominated landings from this area. The catch of associated species, especially sablefish, increased with greater rockfish effort. As a result, total catch increased by more than the additional rockfish caught. In recent years, proportions of the several rockfish species landed have changed. In 1959 and 1960, some trawlers fished in deeper water than previously. Their catches were largely splitnose rockfish, a species previously discarded. In 1960, this species made up 16.8 percent of the total trawl catch, with landings of over 0.5 million pounds. Catches of splitnose rockfish have not increased total landings because this species replaced others in the catch. Catches of English and petrale sole, which are taken in mueh shal- lower water than rockfish, remained fairly stable through 1957, then MONTEREY BAY TRAWLING ]57 TOTAL CATCH POUNDS 4,000.000 - 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 wm, m m m ■»>:■: ssa ,1 ?^ td mm 0 9 1m& sss m a o n m m ROCKFISH ENGLISH SOLE PETRALE SOLE SABLEFISH SPLITNOSE ROCK HAKE SANODAB REX SOLE OTHER SPECIES 5^ Mi FIGURE 3. Composition of trawler landings from the area between Pigeon Point and Point Sur, California, during 1951-1960. All categories with landings of over 150,000 pounds are shown separately; all others are lumped as "other species." dropped abruptly to about one-half their former level from 1958 through 1960. Changes in rockfish species composition and decreased catches of English and petrale sole may have influenced catch-per-day in the study area. Two observable changes in the fishery seem at odds with a rising trend in catch-per-day. First, increased use of splitnose rock- fish indicates a shortage of the more-desirable rockfishes such as bo- caccio and chilipepper on the fishing grounds. Second, the sudden de- crease in English and petrale sole catches in 1958 indicates less effort was expended on them, suggesting the rewards of this fishery were not as great as in past years. These observations indicate a decline in the fishery which is not evidenced by catch-per-day because of a drop in effort on high-value species with a low catch-per-day (English and pe- trale sole) and an increase in effort on a low- value species with a high catch-per-day (splitnose rockfish). Fishing Areas A trawl fishery is actually a complex of several sub-fisheries, with the trawler taking different groups of fish in different areas and depths. The Monterey Bay area trawl fishery is characterized by three sub-fish- eries; a shallow- water one in 30 to 60 fathoms, an intermediate-depth one in 60 to 130 fathoms, and a deep-water one in 130 to 200 fathoms (Figure 1). Since the catch of each sub-fishery is independent of the others, each must be considered separately before it is possible to under- stand the total trawl fishery. The amount of ocean floor available for trawling is limited by bottom topography and legal restrictions prohibiting trawling within' 3 nauti- 3—85392 158 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME cal miles of the mainland. Since trawling entails dragging a net along the ocean floor, the bottom nnist be relatively smooth. Much of the area within Monterey Bay over 60 fathoms deep, and many other local areas are rough and must be avoided by trawlers. The law prohibiting trawl- ing within 3 miles of shore has its greatest effect on the shallow-water sub-fishery where a great deal of trawlable area lies. This law also eliminates from the deep-water sub-fishery areas off' Carniel and soutli of Point Sur, where depths exceeding 200 fathoms occur within 3 miles of shore. Shallow-water sub-Fishery Flatfishes most abundant in 30 to GO fathoms make up the bulk of the shallow-water sub-fishery catch. During 1960, 35.7 percent of the trawlers' fishing days were spent on this sub-fishery. Although this ett'ort produced only 12.8 percent of the landings, the higher prices })aid for flatfish partially compensated for smaller catches. The principal shallow areas exploited are flats within Monterey Bay available to relatively small trawlers which could not travel to more distant grounds. Intermediate-depth sub-fishery This was the most important of the three sub-fisheries. Rockfish are most abundant in 60 to 130 fathoms and several species make up the bulk of the catch. Trawlers expended 50.1 percent of their effort (days) on this sub-fishery during 1960, and produced 64.6 percent of the total landings. Most of the trawlable bottom in these depths is off" l*oint Sur and Santa Cruz. Small trawlable areas off' Point Pinos and Point Aho Nuevo are fished when the primaiy areas fail to yield adequate catches. Deep-water sub-fishery The sub-fishery at 130 to 200 fathoms became significant in 1959 and 1960. These grounds produce mainly splitnose rockfish, a species pre- viously shunned by markets. In 1960, this sub-fishery received 14.2 percent of the total trawling eff'ort and produced 22.6 percent of the total catch. The market price for splitnose rockfish is among the loAvest paid for trawled species. As a consequence, catches must be large to make their harvest profitable. The areas utilized by this sub-fishery are, for the most part, adjacent to the intermediate-depth rockfish grounds off' Santa Cruz and Daven- port. Some catches are made between Carmel and Point Sur and off Point Pinos. CATCH SAMPLING AT SEA Eight 1-day trips were made to sample the intermediate-depth sub- fishery, 5 1 to sample the shallow-water sub-fishery and 2^ to sample the deep-water sub-fishery. The half da^'s occurred when, on one trip, half a day was spent on the deep-water sub-fishery and the rest of the day on the shallow-water sub-fishery. Thus, 50.0 percent of the sampling effort was on the intermediate-depth sub-fishery, 34.4 percent on the shallow-water sub-fishery, and 15.6 percent on the deep-water sub- MONTEREY BAY TRAWLING 159 fishery. Tliis compares well witli tlie days of effort spent on the re- spective sub-fisheries by the fleet duriiij;' !!)()(). Each tow oil each trip was eiunuerated separately. When possible, we counted and weighed all fish to be discarded and measured all im- portant species. Minor constituents of the marketable catch were also enumerated at sea. The catch of major marketable species was recorded from landino- receipts for the day a vessel was sampled. Occasionally catches were so large or contained so many unmarketable fish that we could take only a sample of the catch. In these cases, the sample was related to total take of the drag, and its comi^osition calculated. Sampling data included a compk-te breakdown of eacli tow by weiglit of fish caught, marketed, and discarded. These data were combined to show tlie species composition of each sub-fishery. Similar species in each sub-fishery were combined into four groups: i-ockfisli, flatfish, sharks and rays, and miscellaneous. In the following discussion, all percentages relate to weight. Shallow-Water Sub-Fishery The average catch of 10 shallow-water tows was 961.8 pounds (Table 2). By weight, the catch was composed of 9.2 percent rockfish, 51.5 percent flatfish, 18.2 percent sharks and rays, and 21.1 percent miscel- laneous (Figure 4). Large amounts of unmarketable species resulted in an overall discard of 43.1 percent. The major objective of this sub-fishery was flatfisli ; other marketable fish were a bonus. Rockfish 1-vockfish made up 9.2 percent of the catch, and because comparatively large proportions were unmarketable, 44. .3 percent were discarded. Bocaccio were most abundant, making up 53.2 percent. Only an occa- sional small one was discarded. Stripetail rockfish were next in importance, amounting to 29.3 pounds in an average rockfish catch of 88.5 pounds. All were small and thus were discarded. This species alone made up 74.7 percent of the rockfish discard. Shortspine channel rockfish and greenstriped rockfish made np an- other 8.4 percent of the catch. Since greenstriped rockfish Avere not of marketable size and shortspine channel rockfish were not desired, both were discarded. The above four species comprised 94.8 percent of the rockfish catch. Another six species made up the remaining 5.2 percent. These six were potentially marketable species and only small specimens were discarded. Some greenspotted and chilipepper rockfish, and all splitnose and dark- blotched rockfish were discarded because of size. The few cow and canary rockfish caught were marketed. Flaffish Flatfish were the objective of these tows and comprised 51.5 percent of the catch. Because of a relatively small discard, 77.3 percent of the marketed fish were of this group. Discard amounted to 14.6 percent of the 495.2 pounds of flatfish in an av^erage tow. 160 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME SHALLOW-WATER SUB-FISHERY Q Sso- q: < ^60- :■:: X : ::■: O) : o ■:■:■ u- : w,^; h- 40 - Z ■ Oi '■o, LU ^20- ■ ■ 1 UJ Q. ' * 'i FLATFISH jnrrr-t 4 ■ a ■ B ■ ■ a ■ a a a a a a a » ■'»■■■■■.■ a a "' I a a ■ >- a".'. < aV.O: r ■ ■ 'a'a". * ' I a a a a a a ^\ x; '- - a • a a a a a a < I a a I . a a a a a a ■ ■ a a a a I a I ,. a a a a a CO B a a a I — , a a a a a — 'i a a a I o ■ ■ ■ < ' ;y: I ■ ■ ■ u J ■ ■ ■ , 1 ^-1 — •-,--■ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION 20 40 -60 o iij I- UJ < UJ o 80 cr UJ 90 INTERMEDIATE-DEPTH SUB-FISHERY Q ^80 < ^ 60 Q 1- 40- z UJ ^ 20 UJ Q. RQCKFISH ■'''■'M'»'ir't"i"t'ii'»'i'i"i ■■■■■■■I ■'■"*"■ t'H'U'tfu ■ » aaaaaaaaaaaaa ■ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa _ _ a a ■ a a a a a a a a a a a a I ~ - n ~ * * CO c/1 a: < X en a' I I a I I -20 -40 Q UJ I- UJ < -60 I- z UJ 80 a ui Q. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION 90 DEEP-WATER SUB-FISHERY S 80 ^ 60 1- 40 z UI ^20 UJ Q. 10 RQCKFISH -r "T- — r FLATFISH «, ■ ■ ■ ^ 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION » 'f r t < ■ iOCa| > cn • >- IE LlJ I >- 10 CO ir UJ I 1 IXI >- rr UJ U- _) UJ 1 i X Q. < nn I lO s >- >- - 1- -I Q- u. u. »— > O Q O 3 < T O UJ S a: UJ K < S 1 Q. liJ UJ < X o 1- < UJ Ul i- Q UJ cr ^ < IT OI ^S■OOI S96 S 26 g 88 S>8 Q08 S'9Z S2i S 89 g>9 - 509 S9S S29 to UJ S8fr a3ynsv3w 3dAl 3oanos CO UJ a. CO CM CO CO (D fO o in cc ro in o in cvj CD in CO CO in 01 CD CD O CO CO CM 01 01 O CD O CJ O qSoqooooooqoo a OS a ----coco*-co-Q CO CO — — I CO co II u. V i^ C ) o o o rr cr V _i _i < t- _i Ul m I- CO 01 o I CO I CO o o cc O I CO I CO u. o o (T Ul CO O a. CO X CO u. o o CO 0. a. Ul a. X o Ul X o < o o z < CO < o a 2 < CO UJ o CO o o < o o m O o Ul :~ — Q < a. o CO X Ul q: O CO X CO o CO X CO o CO X CO o CO o CO O C9 C3 O CO (T Ul > o Q O CO > o < < I- (- Ul Ul Q. Q- Q02 g'9l SZI 58 UJ UJ _l _l < o ,~ c (U (U u Ol 0) c n. 0 ^ o -^ c -0 dJ c ^-. 2 ^ ii -^ 0 a Qfrfr S 00 c ^ SOfr UJ o -2 g 9t o ^.E S2£ X en 4) 1- .E en S82 II w» o <^ = _ o -t- <- c >, ° 0) .5 'o -o 0) <1) o c I/) •— i) 1- —I (U > g? 172 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Flaffish Pacific sanddabs were the smallest flatfish taken. Although they ranged from 6 to 30 cm in the shallow-water sub-fishery, 90 percent were over 15.7 cm and 50 percent were over 20.8. Their small sizes ac- counted for the considerable discard. Of Pacific sanddabs discarded from the shallow-water sub-fishery, 90 percent were under 20.9 cm. The size distribution of slender soles was similar to that of Pacific sanddabs except that no very small specimens were found. Sizes for all sub-fisheries combined ranged from 17 to 29 cm with the median at 23.2. Unlike Pacific sanddabs, this species has no value and all were dis- carded. Rex soles in the intermediate-depth sub-fishery ranged from 20 to 38 cm with the median at 29.5. They are elongated compared to Pacific sanddabs, so their minimum marketable size was somewhat greater. Although 90 percent of the rex soles were over 25.9 cm long, a consider- able portion of the catch was discarded. In the intermediate-depth sub-fishery, English sole ranged from 23 to 42 cm, with the median at 31.1. Those from the shallow-water sub- fishery were 25 to 42 cm long, with the median at 31.8. In the deep- water catches they were 31 to 43 cm long, with the median at 36.3. Since only the larger Dover soles were accepted by Monterey markets, their discard was relatively high. The discarded fish from the shallow- water tows ranged from 22 to 36 cm, with 90 percent under 34.8. The median size taken by the intermediate-depth sub-fishery was 33.9 cm. Petrale soles were the largest flatfish taken during this study and virtually all were marketable. Those from shallow water ran larger than those from intermediate depths. Petrale soles from shallow water tows ranged from 24 to 53 cm, with 80 percent between 29.5 and 45.6. In intermediate depths the range was 23 to 54 cm, with 80 percent be- tween 27.5 and 42.9. Miscellaneous Lingcod was the only species other than rockfish and flatfish for which we had a significant number of measurements. Those from inter- mediate depths ranged from 37 to 103 cm with the median at 64.6. Eighty percent were between 54.7 and 74.7 cm long. SUMMARY The Monterey Bay trawl fishery is centered between Pigeon Point and Point Sur. Eight trawlers operated from Monterey Bay ports in 1960, compared to 17 in 1956. During 1960, sixteen trips were made aboard these trawlers to obtain information on this fishery. Landings from the fishery rose from 2.0 million pounds in 1951 to 7.3 million pounds in 1956, then declined to 3.4 million pounds in 1959 and 1960. This rise and decline was paralleled by similar fluctuations in effort, with catch-per-day exhibiting a sliglit rising trend. The rockfish category, in which I have included all rockfish except splitnose, has dominated landings since 1951. In 1959 and 1960, split- nose rockfish replaced English sole in importance and became second- ranked. Change in proportions of English sole and splitnose rockfish MONTEREY BAY TRAWLING 173 ill the catch may have influenced catch-per-day without reflecting actual conditions of the stocks of fish. Tlie Monterey Bay trawl fishery consists of tliree sub-fisheries : a shallow-water sub-fishery (40 to 60 fathoms), an intermediate-depth sub-fishery (60 to 130 fathoms), and a deep-water sub-fishery (130 to 200 fathoms). Tlie area available for trawlin<>' in each sub-fishery is lim- ited b}^ law and bottom topography. Sampling was proportional to the fishing effort of the three sub-fisheries. An average shallow-water tow caught 961.3 pounds and was com- posed of 9.2 percent rockfish, 51.5 percent flatfish, 18.2 percent sharks and rays, and 21.1 percent miscellaneous. Discard amounted to 43.1 percent. The leading marketed species were English and petrale soles. Pacific hake and longnose skates were the principal constituents of the discard. An average intermediate-depth tow caught 2,559.5 pounds and was composed of 89.6 percent rockfish, 3.4 percent flatfish, 3.7 percent sharks and rays, and 3.3 percent miscellaneous. Discard amounted to 15.7 percent. Bocaccio and chilipepper made up the bulk of the catch. Shortbelly and stripetail rockfish were the major species dis- carded. An average deep-water tow caught 2,258.4 pounds and was composed of 58.4 percent rockfish, 25.1 percent flatfish, 9.6 percent sharks and rays, and 6.9 percent miscellaneous. Discard amounted to 14.0 percent. Splitno.se rockfish was the principal species taken. Ratfish and Pacific hake were the principal species discarded. No sources of competition Avith the party-boat fleet, in terms of species caught or areas fished, were revealed by this survey. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I Avish to thank the commercial fishing industry at Monterey and Moss Landing for co-operation extended throughout the course of this study. The skippers and crews of the traAvlers deserve special thanks for taking samplers aboard and allowing them to examine catches. Several department employees participated in this program. R. E. Jones accompanied me on most of the trips at sea and transcribed the initial data. Department marine biologists Julius B. Phillips, Daniel J. Miller, and C. E. Blunt, Jr., assisted in sampling at sea during the latter part of the study. D. "W. Satterlee summarized much of the data necessary for this report. T am indebted to E. A. Best, IT. CI. Orcutt, and John L. Baxter for their suggestions and editorial assistance during the preparation of this report. REFERENCES Heimnnii, Richard F. Q., and Daniel J. Miller 1960. The IMori-o Ray otter trawl and party boat fisheries Ausiist. 19r>7, to Sciitember. lO.'iS. Calif. Fish and (!nme', vol. 4(;. no. 8, pp. 85-58. Phillips, Jnlin.s R. 1957. A review of the rockfishes of California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fi■ ~ - 1 i^v -' >-. .-^ r; c o n; 1/". -/ U "t^ C -r ;^ ii r'. £ O ri .^ ^ ■- "^ — ^ '.~ O _C '-S "^ b ^ j: ' — £ ■ " o 'f' ^ :i 3 ■ H- ^ o ": §, p ^j o ij D O ~ ."tr -' cJ X c u C r ^^ — -— ^ G-= i. 'i " ~. ^ ^ s c ^' 5 E ji ■- jJ S t^ ^ '-^ '=5 §^ H 'o- o / ^ i^, -IX \J l; -' f> -o ■1 » Cu n ^. ^ " 'w o ■- c s C " 2g^ rt u- C1.-T3 c a. C/3 D ■2 3 £ ^ ^ ^J C :^. « " - ^ -■ i> -^ c « -Q '^ '^ : o c V-, ^ S >- '-= — -O .2 E c 3 3 ^ 3 C U t: U > >-■ ^ t c ^ _ a — p d. 3 >- c U LI C D E (^^^ o ^ o -a ^ r-- S 3 H ^ 'i Q S. Z IE s ° ii. -D c ^ o 0, (U •^ U c O c O u 'V "^ 'Ti -5 '-^ 1-1 :3 D- -C o J5 U( 'S . o bb You ■ shing o '^ p c . (D o *J TD > >-. _c 1- o t« rt u. 'H 3 "-I a. .- E rt o r- ' — ^_^ 3 tJ Jj <:> C — E G\ >-^ ■« « — ' jn S 0 '-* -T3 "^ ■ — _G ^ C 5 '-'"■ ri >-^ c 3 .:C- "O 0 Uh >. y- . . ■_^_ c -^ " ■ — ■ c rt ^ E o 3 C '-r. O NJ c Oh rt Jl; 0 u ^ o ■o 0) E Z « Q c o >«■ o CO u c o D (1> o 5 o c o c o (U w O H ^ w C C - D, ;£ ■w- y, — 4_ < ^ ^' ^ E -S 3 Q y. ,i L r: '^ o •*- •_ o -', ^ ^ p -v' a P -^ ^ ^ _c ~T- .? -^ L- / =^ P Of o I 96 1 ANGLING EFFORT DISTRIBUTION 179 RESULTS About 1.5 percent of tlio licenses selected had illegible names or ad- dresses and about 8 perctMit had faulty addresses or lacked forwardiii> tn 01 eo 09 O C3 01 i-H tf^ t^ CO t^ 10 0 ^ CO 0 rH ^ 00 000 .-( 0 iM 000 000 000 000 Q ►0 000 000 0 OC3 0 odd <6 0 0 d d d d ■* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _a) d t» lO t^ IM 0 00 CO CD >0 10 (N 02 (N Tt< 10 CO CO 10 !N ■* C^J ^ tH t^ ''^ 0 0 CO Cj t^ to 00 CO t^ ^ CO -H 0 0 CD 0 CO IM t^ 0 0 CO 'H 0 CO ^ t^ 0 o d 000 0 ^ 10 CO ^^ 10 0 — 1 ^ Tj4 OS ■* en CTi 00^^ 000 S — S 000 000 Q 000 000 000 rO 000 000 000 0 <6 0 6) 000 d dd d CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -S 2 03 m •* CO 00 00 -*< T}< ■n -H CO »o 0 0 t- CO i-H CO 0 00 CD t^ 03 (N CD -H 0 t- CO C^ Tt< C3 M< 00 CO CO (M CO c^ 0: 1^ -i< cn -t 10 -0 M •* 0 000 000 0 000 0 S 9 0 000 0 rO 000 000 000 0 d d d odd d d d d IM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1) s o3 M IM ^ (N t^ c^i 1^ -f 0 0 00 00 !N CO CO 0 o 0 Tf CO 00 CO lo 00 CO — ' 00 10 CO 00 CD e CD 0; rt C^l I^ 10 -f ^ 0 ■^ 00 t^ >o 0 t~ 10 0 CO --I 0 CO -^ in I— t d d d dd d d 00 10 Tf< (>) ^ CO ^ c-i CO CD rt< I^ 00 0 -H 0 000 0 0 C~l ^H 000 000 000 Q rO , c3 1 1 -^ 1 1 -^ 1 I ^ -^ < 1 bi "a; ' ' c"a3 ' • C "3 ' ' fl Q ; ; •°Q ; = Q ; ; ^ fi-S ! 1 c -c 1 , CO CC .S C 1- , ■= c ^ , • Set. 1 ~ 03 ii 1 ■^'^^ ; -S ^S ' 0 ^ >i ^ cc >, d ; cc >> fs ; C c P3 _^ cl to .5 ^ 1 S c3 d . "m d Sfc--|i g ays S.F Fre, Oce '■5 gaJf^O Sm^O 0) W P 3 3 3 182 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME survey. The questionnaire formats were quite similar. Examination of the estimates shows a small increase in the proportion of angling effort spent in San Francisco Bay and the Delta and accompanying small de- creases in the fresh water and ocean proportions (Table 4). No major change in the distribution of angling effort can be inferred from the comparison. It should be noted that certain classes of anglers and the fishing effort they generated are not included in the survey estimates. These classes include purchasers of the previously mentioned 3-day Pacific Ocean licenses, public pier fishermen who do not need licenses in ocean waters, and anglers under age 16 who may fish Avithout licenses. At the time of Clark's survey, the 3-day ocean license was not sold and pier fishermen needed licenses. TABLE 4 Simple Ratios of Angling Days from First Response and Similar Estimates for 1951 Source of estimate S.F. Bay and Delta Fresh water Ocean Proportion of angling days from first response __ Proportion of angling days for 1951 from Clark_ 0.158 0.121 0.540 0.561 0.303 0,318 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most of the difficult work connected with this survey was performed by others. Betty Wright supervised and participated in the tedious jobs of draAving the sample, logging in responses, and maintaining the necessary records. Other personnel of the Biostatistical Section, Marine Resources Operations gave valuable help in these operations and, in addition, the staff of the Data Processing Unit carried through the es- sential machine processing of outgoing questionnaires and incoming responses. Survey results were calculated on the 7090 computer of Western Data Processing Center, University of California at Los Angeles. REFERENCES xVtwood, Earl L. 1956. Validity oi' mail survey data on bagged waterfowl. .Jour. Wild. Mgiut., \-ol. 20, no. 1, PI). 1-10. Chapman, D. G.. W. S. Overton and A. L. Finkner 1959. Methods of estinniting dove kill. North Carolina State Coll., Inst. Stat. Mimeo Ser., no. 264, pp. 1-48. Clark, Frances N. 1953. California marine and fresh water sport fishing intensity in 1951. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 115-125. Nieto de Pascual, .Jose 1961. Fnhiased ratio estimators in stratified sampling. Amer. Stat. Assoc, .Tour.. vol. 56, no. 293, pp. 70-87. Opinion liesearch < Vnter 1949. Angling in California — 1948. Univ. of Denver, 144 i)p. (Conducted for Calif. Div. Fish and Game). Ttyan, .Tames H. 39.59. California inland angling estimates for 1954, 19.56, and 1957. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 93-109. Skinner, .Tohn E. 1955. California statewide angling estimates for 19.53. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 19-32. CALIFORNIA INLAND ANGLING SURVEYS FOR 1959 AND I960' CHARLES M. SEELEY, ROBERT C. THARRATT, and RICHARD L. JOHNSON Inland Fisheries Branch California Department of Fish and Game Periodic state-Avide surveys of Calif oniia's inland sport fisheries have been conducted siuce 1935 to provide information ou trends in sport fish catches, angling pressures, and changes in major game fish ])opulations. Previous surveys have been described by Curtis (1040), Calhoun (1950, 1951, 1958),' Clark (1953), Hkinner (1955), and livan (1959). State-wide angling surveys in California were originally conducted by means of C[uestionnaires attached to fishing license applications. Postal card questionnaires, initiated in 1939, Avere more efficient and have been used since then. The present report is based primarily on postal card questionnaire returns from anglers who fislied successfully in 1959 and 1960. Infor- mation about unsuccessful anglers could not be evaluated accurately from the questionnaire used. METHODS Postal card questionnaires were mailed to a 0.7 percent random sample - of licensed California anglers. About 33 percent of these cards were returned, giving a sample of about 0.2 percent of all licensed anglers. Though the percentage of nonresponse is large (67 percent), its influence on the validitv of these surveys is considered unimportant (Calhoun, 1950). We assumed that anglers who returned questionnaires were repre- sentative of all anglers. Estimates of total catch, total number of anglers, and total days fished were calculated by means of a projection factor determined by dividing the total number of licenses sold by the total number of usable questionnaires returned. Estimates of days fished are based on successful anglers only and are not quite comparable to those of previous reports (Skinner, 1955; Ryan, 1959), which included days fished by unsuccessful anglers. Estimates pertaining to ocean salmon, river salmon, and steelhead fisheries were made but not included. More precise figures than are possible with these surveys are being obtained by extensive creel check- ing, use counts and, in the case of ocean salmon, partv boat records. (Jensen, M. S.). Evidence from California (AVendler, 1960) and elscAvhere (Bjornn. 1961) demonstrates that postal card reports ma}' grossly exaggerate 1 Submitted for publication March 1963. - Ang-lers were selected from carbon copies of their fishing licenses by taking one copy from each group of 125. ( 183 j 184 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME true cateli figures. Some factors contributing to exaggerations in postal card surveys are : complete dependence upon the accuracy of a re- spondent's memory, his ability to distinguish different fish species, confusion in correctly filling out the questionnaire, reporting fish of sub-legal size (striped bass), deliberate exaggeration, and would-be attempts at humor. These exaggerations are partially offset by omitting anglers under 16 years of age, who are not required to buy a license, and those qualified for free licenses. Although these factors affect validity of these surveys to an un- known degree, suspected exaggerations are probably proportional to those in previous surveys, making the data valuable, especially regard- ing trends. Standard errors (included) place confidence limits on the data presented (Tables 2 and 3). However, these are confidence limits for trend figures only, rather than for true estimates. Various species are grouped, since many anglers do not recognize specific differences. Thus, trout includes kokanee salmon and trout ; black bass includes largemouth and smallmouth bass ; catfish includes catfish and bullheads; and panfish includes sunfishes and crappies. Anglers who fished in inland waters for any kind of fish except trout, but including steelhead trout, were required to purchase a $1 license stamp in addition to their license. Those who fished for trout were required to purchase two $1 stamps. In order to ascertain numbers of license buyers who bought two extra stamps and the numbers who actually fished (successfully or un- successfully) for trout, two questions were asked in the 1960 survey: Did you purchase two license stamps in 1960 ? Did you fish for trout in 1960? In all other respects the questionnaire used in the 1960 survey was identical to the one used in 1959 and those reported by Ryan (1959). RETURNS In answer to the question, "Did you purchase two license stamps in I960?," 2,477 (70 percent) respondents answered yes (Table 1). Of these, 17 percent purchased two stamps, but did not fish for trout. In answer to the question, "Did you fish for trout in I960?," 2,050 (58 percent) answered yes. Of these, 82 percent were successful. Of the 18 percent who were unsuccessful, 65 percent gave no detailed information regarding their trout fishing (e.g., county fished or days fished). Assuming this is representative of responses for other species as well, it follows that most unsuccessful anglers give incomplete, or no information about their fishing; therefore, data from them are un- usable, especially when compared to data from successful anglers, which are essentially complete. This supports our long-standing con- tention that data obtained by these questionnaires from unsuccessful anglers are not usable. Of all successful anglers in 1959 and I960, approximately 58 percent fished only in inland waters, 17 percent fished only in the ocean, and 25 percent fished in both inland and ocean waters. 1959 ^^^^D i960 INLAND ANGLING SURVEYS TABLE 1 Characteristics of the Two Surveys 185 1959 1960 Niniiber Percentage Number Percentage a. Sport fishing licenses sold b. Questionnaires mailed c. Questionnaires returned d. Usable returns . . 1,465,440 10,0.30 3,.304 3,2.59 132 2,655 472 449 . 66 16 0.7 32.9 98.6 4.1 81.5 14.5 1,475,691 10,480 3,5.53 3,515 141 2,935 439 419.83 18 0.7 (of a) 33.9 (of b) 98.9 (of c) e. Respondents who did not fish_ _ _ _ 4.0 (of d) f . Successful respondents . g. Unsuccessful respondents li. Projection factor* i. Mean days fished 83.5 (of d) 12.5 (of d) j. Bought two stanipst k. Did not buy two stanipsf 1. Did not answer question about two stampsf ni. Fished for troutt -- -- -- 2,477 863 175 2,0.50 1 ,61)0 70.5 (of d) 24.6 (of d) 5.0 (of d) .58.3 (of d) n. Successful for troutf - -- 82.4 (of m) * Total sport fishing license sales divided by usable returned questionnaires. t j. through n. pertain to questions asked only in the 1960 survey. In 1960, the mean number of days fished in inland waters by suc- cessful anglers was 16, while snccessfnl ocean anglers fished 10. Overall, successful ang-lers fished 18 days, an increase over previous surveys. This increase is further reflected in the data for each species group. State-wide estimates for successful anglers in 1959 and 1960 are given (Tables 2 and 3), and trends in the California sport fish catch since 1949 are shown (Figure 1). The following account discusses the most important features of the data. Trout Trout angling continues as the favorite type of fishing in California. Of all successful anglers, nearly 50 percent caught trout. In comparison wdth other recent surveys (Ryan, 1959; Skinner, 1955) no important changes are evident. The catch stability probably reflects the depart- ment's stocking program, which has varied little since 1957. Striped Bass This fishery occurs primarily in the lower portions of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the San Francisco Bay area. The total catch increased considerably over catches reported in earlier years. This may be partially attributed to the increased harvest in upper San Francisco Bay, and to an apparent increase in the size of the entire striped bass population (Chadwick, 1962). The validity of these trend figures may be affected by changes in regulations. In 1956, the minimum size limit was increased from 12 to 16 inches and the daily bag limit was reduced from five to three fish. Subsequently, the 1956 total catch was less than that of the 1954 survey. Despite regulation changes, the median annual catch of about five fish per angler has remained stable since 1949. 186 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME OS tn O 00 (<0 ■K- lO ^ j:; t- o o >0 01 c — c o a. d O O O O) CO X 1 — 1 r^ 1 — 1 O O -H tC ■O O Tf_ q o_ o 'O "S oi en Tf en lO o" o CO t^ CD t^ CD C-l co_co t^_ r-H t-." r-1 H— K C- CD' t^ t^ Oi y; 03 iO o o -r o --^ C2 o o •en o 'O O O C'l 01 -D 00 o o .-H O) o o ^^ ■^ o ^_ o o o_ C0_ OO' 02 m Tjf ci O" o3 Ol lO O CD O) ^_co S TjT " o -1— X CO t^ 00 o: en ?5 C-. o o ir. o CD iC c o c) d t- o o CO d 02 0 0 -a "*< O (N o o o t^ .3 ^ 05 O CO r-' 00 c^ CO 00 t^ o (N (M .-( q (M C/2 c o o lO ,-H r-i ^ o o •en d CD O O C-l •*< o o o Tt> Tf (N o o O -* o_ 00 o q O lO rt o* !N o' V co" oo' o -^ 00 00 CD Tf CD i>-',-r (N qiN M 1 I (0 1 ' CI ' ' ; 1 1 1 >> 1 1 1 1 03 , 1 [ (K "C ID ' 1 1 ' ' >> t. O ' 1 1 ' ' ,2 'I' -2 ' 1 j3 CJ -*^ 03 o ° -2 ? •« o3 O 22 s ? c3 o _o t. 53"3: i^ 0 cj t. "d 13-^ n:: 5< tH c « o; -H S ^^ o -J s C ^ 03 c3 .2- g g c T3 °^ -a M 2 _ C c3 ^ 03 03 3 =3 5 11 i| c3 OJ 03 SI c: 03 -2 S C 03 -w O ->i J^ c3 -»^ 'S pa +j C3 +* -Tl C3 -fri O (^ g o j/3 Pi » tB 0) ^—4 -M Qiza 2 0«5 s^ Ph £B ^ -^H S fS? h (u <, CC g S£ ^^ 5 fcJD . ^*-" c ^ «^ ill C « tJ I — I — I o c3 C 1959 AND i960 INLAND ANGLING SURVEYS 187 CO V) bO c •a: u E 00 * Tj< ++ -a-^ CD lO 0 !0 ,2 000 ^ 1 1 1 r t 0 d M< 0 0 r-^ r CO ' 1 t 1 1 0 0 IN c c "oJ r^_ 0 0 0 o_ 03 J= CM cd" 0^ CO rt CO t^ ■* IC OJ 5i -* -1- -^ CO »o Oi t^ X. 10 0 0 0 0 -^ oi 0 0 00 ^ -1< 0 0 Ol CD CO C3 000 (M .0 000 I^ 0 0 0 0 0 o_ 03 0" 0 10 -h -t ^ Ol 'I ■* 1> . — I 1 — 1 ZA t^ CO o* ^ TjT rH CM T-H -1— t^ 0 cc -f CD ^ CO 0 0 00 t^ CO 10 c 0 0 0 10 0 0 CD CO « 10 0 0 r^ CO rt 0 0 0 0 --I « CD 0 t^ 0 0 o_ o_ 03 >o' a> o'ci rfj -^ 0 r^ 0 0 0 ^1 IN ,-1 Oi 00 O) 0 cm' T-t 0 -)- CO t~ CM o: ■^00 10 CM 0 0 0 0 CO 0 t^ 0 0 t^ 0 10 0 0 I-H 0 0 -H '^ .0 o_ o_ 0 0 0 0 OJ ^"^ 03 0 rH <£ 00 .^ CO |> rl< Tf 0 ;^ c^ r~ IN Oi (N ■*^ C/2 IN Ol 0 H— --H CO CO CO .-1 ^^ 000 06 CB ^ — 00 0 (6 CD 0 0 cr. -t CT. 0 0 ^ CO 0 0 CO 0 CD 0 Tf 0 0 0 0 H ^ 03 C-) o'od CD CO 0 -H 0 ■* 1^ ^ t~ 0 0 (N t^ CM to to ! ! CD 1 CI) i 1 M 1 1 I 1 1 1 >. i 1 1 1 03 CJ 1 1 1 1 1 CO "d CD 1 1 1 1 1 >" t. 1 - ^ 0 , 1 o3 o3 1 cj CJ t. m 1 , 1 1 j3 <" 0 ej 0 X- 03 0 Jl — ° o3 0 c3 0 Q t. CD fan fc- 0 0 t- "s 03 1: ■^ b ■s-^ bc: s u C ^ CD -J a3 C3 " ^ 3 3 a; ^ tl> .2 .-J c3 CD C 73 =^T3 C C _ i 3 ^ 111 CD H c« 2 c3 03 S 03 ^^ c/2 C 0 °^ C II ca 0 o3 tl C C3 C c3 -f^ u -^ -"" 03 -1^ ■^ *^ -C ^ -*^ Ci 03 g 0 CO P4 CC Pi am <5 3; m 2 — oj (/I -l-l r— o i. ai QChBh 188 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Trout Ponfish offish Block boss Striped boss 53 54 56 57 Year of survey 59 60 FIGURE 1. Trends in California sport fishing. 1959 ^^^ 19^° IXLAXD ANGLING SURVEYS 18!) Black Bass The most striking eliano-e in eateh records concerns black bass. The nnmber of black bass anglers and total catch were the highest since these surveys began. The number of successful anglers increased about 26 percent over 1957 and the proportion of these anglers in- creased from 12 percent of all licensed anglers in 1949 to 16 percent in 1960. Days expended in 1960 exceeded the 1957 figure by nearly 80 percent. The mean annual catch rose to 22 fish in 1960 (the highest since 1938). The median annual catch rose from five to six in 1949 and 1951, respectively, to nine fish per angler in the present surveys. These increases are related primarily to the construction of several new reservoirs and subsequent introductions of bass. Catfish Catfish, like other wai-mwater fish, show rather large increases in angler numbers, catch, and days fished. Panfish Panfish catch data fluctuate considerably with each survey. However, the total catch, as with the other warmwater species, shows a rising trend. SUMMARY Periodic angling surveys have been conducted in California since 1935 to assess state-wide trends in angling success and pressure and to detect major changes in game fish populations. A survey of 1959 and 1960 angling was made by postal-card questionnaires sent to a sample of angling license buyers. Trout fishing is the most popular form of angling. Over half the licensed anglers in the State fish for trout each year. The estimated total catches of striped bass, black bass, and panfish in 1959 and 1960 were greater than in any previous survey. These increases accompanied greater angling effort, as shown by increases in mean days fished for these groups. Increased catch and angling effort for warmwater species are indicative of their greater availability be- cause of continuing warmwater reservoir construction in California. Angling quality, as indicated by the median annual catch per angler, has remained quite stable since 1949 for all species groups except black bass. This figure for black bass has increased from five in 1949 to nine in 1959 and 1960. REFERENCES Bjornn, Ted C. 1961. Statewide fishing harvest survey, 1960. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Annual Progress Report for Investigations Project F-18-R-7, 19 pp. Calhoun, A. J. 1950. California angling catch records from postal card surveys: 1936-1948; with an evaluation of postal card nonresponse. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 177-234. 1951. California state-wide angling catch estimates for 1949. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 69-75. 1953. State-wide California angling estimates for 1951. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 103-113. 190 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Chadwick, Harold K. 1962. Catch records from the striped bass sportfishery in California. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. IHB-ITT. Clark, Frances N. 1953. California marine and fresh water sport fishing intensity in 1951. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 115-125. Curtis, Brian 1940. Anglers' catch records in California. Amer. Fish. Soc, Trans., 1939, vol. 69, pp. 12.5-131. .Jensen, I'anl T. M.S. Landings estimates of California's marine recreational salmon fishery. Ryan, James H. 1959. California inland angling estimates for 1954, 1956, and 1957. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 93-109. Skinner, John E. 1955. California state-wide angling estimates for 1953. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 19-32. Wendler. Henry O. 1960. The importance of the ocean sport fishery to the ocean catch of salmon in the states of Washington, Oregon and California. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 291-300. EFFECT OF OCEAN TEMPERATURE ON THE SEAWARD MOVEMENTS OF STRIPED BASS, ROCCUS SAXATIUS, ON THE PACIFIC COAST' By JOHN RADOVICH Marine Resources Branch California Department of Fish and Game INTRODUCTION It all began during tlie surge of exotic fish iuti'oduetions following Seth Green's remarkable transplantation of American shad, Alo.sa sapidissinia, into the Sacramento River on June 27, 1871 (Smith, 1896). Multitudes of fish and fish eggs, of various kinds, were transported across continents and oceans, and from one hemisphere to the other. Many did not become established; unfortunately some did. Others proved welcome additions to their new habitat ; the stri]ied bass is generally considered one of these. In Juh^ 1879, Livingston Stone, of the United States Fish Commission, dumped about 185 small striped bass into Carcjuinez Strait at Martinez. The entire Pacific coast sti'ii)ed bass ])()pulation has descenchnl from these fisli, colh'cted fi'om tlie Xavesink l\i\('r. New Jersev, and .'U)() addi- 40° 35° FIGURE 1. Reference chart of the San Francisco Bay area. tional fish transplanted to Suisun Bay (Figure 1) from Shrewsbury River, New Jersey in 1882; although by then, the original fish had already gained a foothold (Smith, 1896). 1 Submitted for publication March 1063. (191) 192 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Despite their common origin, striped bass are caught primarily in inland waters on the Pacific coast of the United States, while they are considered surf fish by anglers on the Atlantic coast. A possible explana- tion for this apparent difference in the fisheries of the two coasts is that the magnitude of the striper's seaward migration might be a function of ocean temperatures. Cold water off San Francisco may tend to keep them from running to sea and dispersing along the coast, except during warm-water years. Their establishment in Coos Bay, Oregon during 1925 and 1926, and the exceptional surf catches around San Francisco during 1957, 1958, and 1959, could have been the result of warm coastal waters (Radovieh, 1961). This paper presents evidence pertaining to this phenemenon and concludes there is a relationship betw^een ocean temperatures and the seaward migration of striped bass. This stud}^ is especially pertinent to biological problems that may arise from the salt-water barrier that has been proposed between San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. EARLY OCEAN OCCURRENCES During the wave of exhilaration following the successful introduc- tion of striped bass, reports were sometimes more enthusiastic than accurate. Although the California Commissioners of Fisheries (1884) reported that a striped bass weighing nearly 17 pounds was taken in Monterey Bay in September 1888, they also stated, "Bass have been taken as far north as British Columbia." The Monterey Bay capture was the first ocean record on the Pacific Coast, but the reference to catches oft' British Columbia may have been overly optimistic. Regard- ing this, and another report in 1887, of catches as far south as San Diego, Smith (1896) reported that inquiries by the United States Fish Commission between 1888 and 1894 found no authentic reports of striped bass either as far south as San Diego or north of California. Meanwhile, in the Russian River a 6-pound specimen was caught in 1890, and in 1891, salmon gill-netters began catching them there. In 1893, one was reported from Santa Cruz and two, 6-pounders were caught at Redondo Beach in 1894 (Smith, 1896). The California Board of Fish Commissioners (1907) stated that three or four specimens weighing up to 20 pounds were taken in the Eel River in 1905. They implied that these may have survived from less than a dozen liberated in Humboldt Bay in 1899. The Humboldt Bay transplant was an attempt to extend the range of striped bass north of the Russian River. Smith (1908) wrote: "Up to 1896 the fish had not been reported outside of California, but several years thereafter it began to run in some of the coast rivers of Oregon, and in the fall of 1906, half a dozen fine specimens were caught in traps at the mouth of the Columbia River, the first recorded from that stream." Since Smith did not pin- point the time of their first occurrence off Oregon closer than "several years after 1896," we can only surmise it took place within a "few years" of the turn of the century. Additional attempts were made to extend the range of striped bass south of Monterey Bay. In December 1903, about 75 bass were planted OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND STRIPED BASS 193 in the mouth of the Santa Ana River, Orange County (Calif. Board of Fish Commissioners, 1904). In 1909, a "carload" was planted in "suit- able waters of limited area in Orange County," accoi'ding to the Cali- fornia Board of Fish and Game Commissioners (1910) who also stated this was "the third shipment made into these waters in the past eight years." I was unable to find the third record for Orange County prior to 1910. Scofield and Bryant (1926) wrote of another plant in 1904; however, no such record appears on their table of California plantings. Their table showed additional plants at North San Diego River, and at Morro Bav in 1916, and at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, and Morro Bay in 1919." Morgan and Gerlach (1950) stated, "It has been reported that the first striped bass caught in Coos Bay was taken by a gill-netter in 1914." They also stated, "From the information available, it appears that stri]3ed bass were first taken in commercial quantities on Coos Bay in 1922." However, in neither case do they give the source of their in- formation. Also referring to striped bass in Coos Bay, Scofield (1931) wrote, "It was not until 1918 that the bass were noticed there in any great numbers. Since that time a good market has been established for them and the catch is increasing annually." Scofield did not indicate the source of his information regarding the 1918 occurrences. The "good market" probably developed in 1925. In 1925, striped bass were being caught in commercial quantities in the Coos Bay region (Scofield and Bryant, 1926). Ilubbs and Schultz (1929) noted that striped bass occurred in commercial abundance both in and near Coos Bay, during the summer of 1926. Since that time, Coos Bay has had a resident striped bass population. Despite the many plantings, only a few striped bass have been caught south of Monterey Bay. In 1959, their southern limit was extended to about 25 miles south of the Mexican Border (Radovich, 1961). An at- tempt to establish them in the lower Colorado River was made in 1959, w^hen 938 were introduced near Blythe, Riverside County (St. Amant, 1959). Apparentl,y striped bass were confined mainly between Monterey and the Russian River until about 1900. They began to appear north of California after 1905. Some may have been caught in Coos Bay as early as 1914 and fair numbers may have appeared in 1918 and 1922 ; however, they definitely became established in 1925. The appearance of striped bass in Coos Bay during the high ocean temperature period 1925 to 1926, and their appearance in the surf near San Francisco during 1957-1959, stimulated speculation that ocean temperatures affect their seaward migrations (Radovich, 1961). Al- though the historical record is compatible with this idea, it is far from convincing. The Coos Bay striped bass population could have descended from a few fish which arrived prior to 1925, instead of moving there en masse during 1925-1926. Unfortunately, early records of striped bass occurrences are obscure and sea temperature data are non-existent. Therefore, I have relied on more recent records to study catch and temperature relationships. 194 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CENTRAL CALIFORNIA OCEAN TEMPERATURE HISTORY Fort Point is just inside the mouth of San Francisco Bay, where anadroraous fish must pass (Figure 1). Water temperatures have been recorded here since 1922; however, the data are incomplete for 1912, 1946 through 1949, and 1959. Unfortunately, both tide and river flow influence these temperatures. Cool ocean water entering the bay on incoming tides and warm bay water flowing into the ocean on outgoing tides cause the temjieratures to vary with the state of the tide. A lack of complete records and the influence of tidal and river flow makes Fort Point temperatures valueless for my purposes. Farallon Island temperatures have been collected intermittently since 1925. The records are complete from 1926 through 1942, not available from 1943 to 1955 and incomplete for 1955, 1956, and 1959. Although their use is limited they shoAV that monotonously cool conditions persist off San Francisco throughout the year. Average monthly mean tem- peratures from 1926 through 1955 "ranged from 52.;rF. (11.3°C.) in April and May, to 56.0°F. (13.4°C.) in September, an average mean range of only 3.7 °F. (2.1°C.). Other California coastal stations, where long-term records have been kept include Blunts Reef Lightship, Pacific drove. Port Hueneme, Los Angeles (Outer Harbor), Balboa, and La Jolla. Records begin in 1923 for Blunts Reef Lightship, located about 180 miles north of San Fran- cisco. However, they are incomplete in 1941 and 1959, and absent between 1941 and 1955. The most complete California records are from La Jolla (about 450 miles south of San Francisco) beginning in 1917 and from Pacific Grove (about 80 miles south of San Francisco) dating from 1919. These are regarded as key stations, each typical of its nearby area. In general there is good agreement between temperature variations at all the coastal stations (Robinson, 1961). Average monthly surface temperatures from 1921 through 1938 for the 5-degree (longitude and latitude) square encompassing central California (lat. 35-40°N., long. 120-125° W.) were obtained from Gun- nar I. Roden, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These data were originally compiled by the Imperial Marine Observatorj^, Kobe, Japan, 1915 YEAR 35 40 — r-i — I — I — I — [— 1 — I — 1 — I — n — I — I — TT F °C ' ' LA JOLLA, CALIF. 'F °C I I I I I 1 I I C °F 56- 55- 54 1915 FIGURE 2. The average annual sea surface temperatures at Scripps Pier, La Jolla compared with those at Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, and from the five-degree square, lat. 35 -40°N., long. 120 -125 W., off central California. OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND STRIPED BASS 195 and are the only data available for reflecting surface temperatures over a broad area off San Francisco during these years. It is not known how many tem])erature observations were made and liow they were distributed over time and area from year to yeai'. They are averages of all water temperatures recorded b}' Japanese merchant and fishing vessels, and would be affected by where and when the observations were made within a given month. When compared with records from La Jolla and Pacific Grove, strong sinnlaritics and some differences were revealed (Table 1, Figure 2). The peaks and troughs coincide quite well, but the warm year 1931 was not as prominent in the 5-degree s(|uare as at La Jolla or Pacific Grove. A major discrepancy occurred l)rior to 1928. This period Avas relatively colder at Pacific Grove than at the other areas. The ocean climate as reflected by temperature in the 5- degree square was intermediate between that at La Jolla and Pacific Gi'ove. Thus it api)ears that although some discrepancies occur, temperature variations at Pacific Grove and La Jolla broadly reflect variations in ocean waters off San Francisco and may be used as indicators of ocean conditions which may affect striped bass behavior. Other indices of ocean climate could be developed by using a corre- lation between air temperature and ocean temperature at certain loca- tions. In this manner the history of the ocean environment might be Xmshed back a number of years since records of air temperature are more complete than those of sea temperature. TABLE 1 Average Annual Sea Surface Temperatures at Scripps Pier, La Jolla; at Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove; and from the Five-Degree Square, lat. 35M0°N., long. 120°-125°W. Temperatures ° C. Five-Degree Year La Jolld Pacific Grove Square 1917 16.G 1918 17.4 1919 16.9 12.8 1920 1G.5 12.5 1921 1(!.5 12.2 12.6 1922 16.5 11.8 12.8 1923 17.4 12.2 l.'i.O 1924 IC.C, 11.6 12.4 1925 16.S 12.2 13.2 1926 18.0 12.5 13.7 1927 16.6 12.3 13.4 1928 16.6 12.4 12.9 1929 17.0 12.9 13.4 1930 17.4 13.5 13.6 1931 18.4 13.8 13.5 1932 16.3 12.S 12 7 1933 15.6 12.2 12 6 1934 17.4 13.3 13.9 1935 16.6 12.7 13.2 196 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME TABLE 1— Continued Average Annual Sea Surface Temperatures at Scripps Pier, La Jolia; at Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove; and from tlie Five-Degree Square, lat. SSo^O'N., long. 120°-125°W. Temperafvre ° C. Five-Degree ir La JoUii Pacific Grove Square 193G_ 17.6 13.4 13.9 1937 17.0 13.1 13.7 1938 ^_ 16.6 13.2 13.7 1939 ^ 17.2 13.2 1940 — . 17.4 1941 17.6 14.5 1942 17.0 13.1 1943 17.0 13.3 1944 16.4 13.1 1945 16.6 13.1 1946 16.8 12.8 1947 16.9 13.2 12.8 1948 _— 16.0 1949 16.5 12.7 1950 16.4 13.0 1951 16.6 12.9 1952 16.3 12.8 1953 16.3 12.7 1954 10.8 13.0 1955 — . 16.5 12.2 1956 16.4 12.7 1957 ^ 17.4 13.7 1958 17.8 14.6 1959 18.4 13.7 1960 16.6 13.1 Mean 16.9 12.9 13.2 ANNUAL MIGRATIONS An examination of the literature leaves one with a confused notion of the annual migrations of striped bass. Scofield (1931) states: "Throughout the winter they are inactive and the commercial catch is light. During the spring the catch increases, and in May just before the commercial season is closed, some of the best net catches are made. During this time the bass are caught periodically. For several days fishermen make fine catches; then gradually the total catch drops. For the next few days fishing is poor until a few fishermen report excellent catches in lower Suisun Bay again. As these periodical catches subside the fishermen will attempt to follow the run, or what they believe to be an 'ocean run', up to the upper Suisun Bay and into the rivers. Move- ments such as these occur each spring. "When the season reopens in August and spawning is over, the fishermen go to lower Suisun Bay to net, for there they make their best catches. Ofi'hand this action would indicate that many bass move back to salt water after spawning. ' ' Scofield further indicated that striped bass were absent in sports- men's catches in Monterey Bay during May, June, and July. This sug- OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND STRIPED BASS 197 gests that the fish migrated from the ocean to spawn in the spring and returned to the ocean during mid-summer after spawning. Clark (1936) reported that results of tagging 1,544 small fish be- tween 1932 and 1935 revealed, "no definite migrations, simply a diffu- sion from the locality in which bass were tagged." Recoveries during a more extensive tagging program from 1947 through 1951 demonstrated a mass movement of adult striped bass up into the fresh-water Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta during the fall, Avhere they remained during the winter. In the spring they dispersed out over the delta and into tributary rivers to spawn, after which they returned to San Francisco Bay and adjacent salt and brackish waters for the summer (Calhoun, 1952). Skinner (1962) states: "The adults begin to enter Carquinez Strait from the bay and ocean about August ; the run usually peaks in Oc- tober, and tapers off rather abruptly. They spread out over the entire Delta for the winter season. . . . Potential spawners move up into the fresh water of the sloughs and rivers of the Delta system and begin to spawn in March or April." It is apparent that interpretations of striped bass movements are contradictory. To recapitulate, Seofield indicates striped bass leave the ocean and spawn upstream during May, June, and July. Calhoun and Skinner feel that spawners move into the streams from the delta area and begin spawning in March or April. All three believe there is a movement back into salt water after spawning. However, Seofield feels the oeeanward run extends into August, while Skinner feels they are beginning to return from the ocean in August. Calhoun and Skinner each state that a mass movement from salt water to the delta area occurs during fall and that the fish winter in the delta, while Seofield infers that many strii^ed bass winter in the ocean. In Coos Bay, Morgan and Gerlach (1950) indicated there are two migrations of striped bass — an upstream spawning migration in the spring followed by a return to the sea during summer, and a second migration into the sloughs in the fall. If we assume all the workers to be conscientious and capable, we must conclude either that variation in movements between periods exists, or that at any given time different portions of the striped bass ])opulation may behave differently, or both. In reality, some striped bass probably winter in the ocean and some in the delta. They spawn upstream, although the beginning of the spawning period maj^ vary from year to year and may differ between fish wintering in the delta and in the ocean. It is also probable that a few fish may move ocean- ward during winter or early spring. In any event, we would expect variations in striped bass movements to be reflected in a commercial fishery in lower Suisun Bay between the Delta and the sea. THE COMMERCIAL FISHERY Within 5 years after introduction, stri])ed bass were offered for sale in San Francisco. In 1887, 3,000 to 4,000 small fish were sold, and by 1889, a commercial fishery was inaugurated (Smith, 1896). The great- est catch was recorded in 1915, when 1,784,448 pounds were delivered to markets, but during the economic slump following World AVar I, 198 CALIFORNIA PISH AND GAME the catch fluctuated between 500,000 and 1,000,000 pounds annually (Scofield, 1931). A catch analysis stud}^ of the striped bass gill-net fishery, ranging pri- marily from the delta to San Pablo Bay, was begun in 1920 (Craig, 1930) and continued until August 14, 1931, when it became unlawful in California to fish for striped bass with nets (Clark, 1933). As a result of this study, catch-per-efi^ort values are available from 1920 through 1931 (Table 2). TABLE 2 Average Daily Boat Catch of Striped Bass (in pounds)' Pounds Year Pounds 74 52 — 47 67 85 — 109 66 1926 58 1927 63 1928 82 1929 65 1930 68 1931 Year 1920 1921 1922 - 1923 1924 1925 1 After Claik (1933). If we compare the striped bass catch-per-effort with average annual sea surface temperatures of the 5-degree square of latitude and longi- tude off central California, we see that fishing success varies directly with temperatures (Figure 3). Q -0 AVERAGE ANtiUAL TEMPERATURE I N 5 DEGREE SO U A RE LAT 35" - 10° N , LONG 120- - 125° W X — K AVERAGE DAILY BOAT CATCH OF STRIPED BASS IN POUNDS 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 YEAR FIGURE 3. The average commercial daily boat catch of stripecJ bass from 1920 through 1931, and average annuel sea surface temperatures in the five-degree square, lot. 35 -40 N., long. 120°-125'W. An even better correlation exists by using average annual sea surface temperatures at La Jolla (Figure 4). The latter correlation is remark- able, particularly when we consider that the temperatures are from about 450 miles south of the commercial fishing area. We would not expect sea surface temperatures at La Jolla to affect striped bass fish- OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND STRIPED BASS TOO ._0 AVERAGE ANNUAL SEA SURFACE TEMI^ERATURE AT SCRIPPS PIER, LA JOLLA K AVERAGE DAILY BOAT CATCH OF STRIPED BASS IN POUNDS Q < UJ cr (r o or UJ UJ <-> <^ < 2 9 1 y 1 6 00 r^ IS) g{ J: ro 0 (T> ■o in CN •" -C OD in 0 -C N 00 in ro 0. "— to E m 0 M- ^^ in n in lU J2 a <^ t— in c 0 *^_ m 0 in a> 'e (M -a in a ^ 0 - t _D "0 — » h- 0 ■* —1 .._ D CD 1/1 ^ 0) 3 a in w u ■^ Q. E j- ^ 0) u 0 v»- ro 3 in "^ 0 (1) irt C\J "5 ^ 3 C C 0 5^ 0) Ol 0 0 > ^ < CD 10 ro UJ Oi ^ 00 0 ro NOiivaom aavMV3s JO X3aNI 202 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME the variability caused by the low effort, and after 1956 the indices may have been affected by new fishing methods, as Chadwick suggested. HoAvever, even with the inclusion of these years, the correlation is striking (Figure 6). TEMPERATURE DEGREES CENTIGRADE 16.0 i7,0 iB.O O X LlI Q O < Q < < cn 1 1 1 3 - 57» 56* S8» 59« 2 1 - 39« 54» 42. ^°* 53 • 38 = ,«• 43» ^^' 45» 47» ^2* 55 1 50. \9 , , 41* 1 1 60.0 61.0 62.0 63 0 64.0 65.0 66. ( TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT LA JOLLA FIGURE 6. The index of secv^ard migration compared with average annual sea surface temperatures at La Jolla from 1938 through 1959. The least squares line of regression is Y = 1.036X— 16.218; the correlation coefficient is r - .7119. The least squares regression line is Y = 1.036 X — 16.218, where Y is the index of downstream migration and X, the sea surface temperature at La Jolla. The 22 pairs of observations have a high cor- relation coefficient (r = .7119) indicating a strong relationship. A similar relationship also is found when the index of seaward mi- gration is plotted against the average annual sea surface temperatures at Pacific Grove (Figure 7). The least squares regression line is Y = .816 A^ — 9.500 and the correlation coefficient with 21 pairs of observations is r =^ .6925. Considering the large number of contributing factors, these correla- tions are even more remarkable. There are variables influencing catch- per-effort; factors influencing distribution, such as population abun- dance and size and age composition ; and errors introduced by using remote temperature data for an index of local oceanic conditions. The highly significant correlations between ocean temperatures and the downstream displacement of striped bass for 22 years (1938 through 1959) and the fishing success of the commercial gill-net fishery for 12 OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND STRIPED BASS 203 TEMPERATURE DEGREES CENTIGRADE 120 13.0 14,0 15.0 ^ or o o < T X 57< 59i 58i 56* 39< 41* 54» 42» 53» 551 43 51- 38 •• 46* • 43 45»»47 52 • 44« 49^ I 50 _L _L 53.0 54.0 ;? 0 56.0 57.0 5 8.0 59.0 TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT PACIFIC GROVE FIGURE 7. The index of seaward migration compared with average annual sea surface temperatures at Pacific Grove from 1933 through 1959. The least squares line of regression is y = .816X — 9.500; the correlation coefficient is r = .6925. years (1920 throiig-h 1931) leads me to conclude that there is a positive relatioiislii]) betAveen coastal sea temperatures and the seaward migra- tion of striped bass. DISCUSSION Apparently striped bass angling success is influenced primarily by local abundance, although other factors such as feeding behavior must also affect it. By contrast, variations in intensity of the seaward migra- tion were probably responsible for most of the variations in fishing success of the commercial gill-netters from 1920 through 1931, although local abundance and other factors also were involved. Monotonous cool water conditions normally existing off San Fran- cisco Bay seem to act as a barrier to the ocean migration. However, during warm years the Pacific coast striped bass make a definite ocean migration as do their Atlantic relatives. Despite the apparent aversion of striped bass to cool ocean waters, the species can stand very cold water. Merriman (1941) states that on the Atlantic coast, the striped bass may winter under ice in estuaries, rivers and bays. However, in the spring, migrations do not begin until the water warms up. He also points out that up-eoast migrations cease during cold snaps and resume when the snap ends. In addition, he shows that large year classes seem to be associated with cold years, although cold water does not guarantee one. 204 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME The conclusion that the seaward migration is a function of coastal temperature is consistent with the available information on striped bass. In fact, it helps explain certain irregularities. Calhoun (1949) felt that the sharp tapering off of the catch-per-angler in upper San Francisco Bay after 1944, resulted from causes unrelated to over-all abundance of striped bass. He indicated the decline probably was due to a change in conditions in San Francisco Bay. Apparently, fluctua- tions in ocean temperatures caused most of the variations he described (Figure 5). Chadwick (1962) stated that information from tag returns indicates substantial changes in bass migration have taken place between 1953 and 1958. He maintained that bass tended to move farther downstream during recent years. This is consistent wnth my conclusions since the index of seaward migration also shows that bass were distributed farther downstream after 1956 (Figure 5) — probably because coastal waters began warming that fall. Occasionally striped bass fishing is spectacular in the surf near the Golden Gate for brief periods during the summer. This happened in 1948 (Calhoun, 1952) ; yet the annual average ocean temperature was low (Figure 5). In this year, sea surface temperatures recorded at Pacific Grove during July and August were exceptionally high. By using annual average temperatures, short term temperature anomalies are lost and do not explain single season short-term catch anomalies. If better indices of local water temperatures and fish movements can be developed they would facilitate examining this phenomenon in much greater detail. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Despite a common ancestry, Pacific coast striped bass do not appear to make extensive coastal migrations as do their relatives on the At- lantic coast. Although a fishery had developed in San Francisco Bay by 1890, bass ranged mainly from Monterey to the Russian River until the early 1900 's. The striped bass in its native environment is an anadromous fish that moves into the ocean after spawning and occasionally at other times during the year. A cold-water barrier off' the Golden Gate retards the seaward run, which develops when water temperatures become warm. Variations in the seaward run had a pronounced effect on commercial gill-netting success. The correlations for catch-per-effort and ocean temperatures between 1920 and 1931 were highly significant. An index of seaward migration was developed by using the ratio of an average daily catch-per-angler from a downstream region to that from an upstream area. This index refieets downstream distribution and is somewhat independent of total population size. A high correla- tion was found between the index and ocean temperatures from 1938 through 1959. As a result of these correlations, I conclude a positive relationship exists between coastal sea temperatures and the seaward migration of striped bass. This conclusion is consistent with the avail- able information on striped bass and, in fact, helps explain some ir- regularities that have been observed. OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND STRIPED BASS 205 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 111 tlic |)n'i)ai-ati()ii of this ])ai)('r 1 i-ecoivod advice and counsel from many people. Ainon^- the Department of Fish and Game biologists to Avhom I am especially <2ratefnl are: Arnold Albrecht, John Baxter, Harold Chadwick, Harold Clemens, Donald Fry, Jr., Doyle C4ates, Richard Ileimann, Donald Kelley. Leo Pinkas, and James Thomas. Richard Croker, Pacific ^Marine Fisheries Commission, and John Isaacs, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, also gave valuable comments on the first draft of the manuscript. Gertrude Cutler, Department of Fish and Game, assisted with the computations and with the preparation of tables and figures. REFERENCES Becker, Clarence I). 1962. E.'^tiinatiuK red smIiikhi escapements by sample connts from observation towers. U. S. Fish and AVild. Sur.. Fish. Bull. 192. vol. 61, pp. 855-869. Calhoun, A. .T. 1949. ( "alifoi Ilia strijied bass catch records from the jiarty boat fishery: 198S- 1949. Calif. Fish and (Jame, vol. 85. no. 4, pp. 211-2.58. 1952. Annual migrations of California striped bass. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 3cS, no. 3, pp. 391-403. California. Commissioners of ?"'isheries 1879. Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries for the years 1878 and 1879. Sacramento, State Printer, 68 pp. 1884. Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries for the years 1888-4. Sacramento, State Printer, 8.8 pp. ("alifoniia. lioard of Fish Commissioners 1904. Eighteenth biennial report of the State Board of Fish Commis.sioners for the years 1908-1904. Sacramento, State Printer, 112 pp. 1907. Xineteenth biennial report of the State lioard of Fish Commissioners for the years 19(I5-190(;. Sacramento. State Printer, 112 pp. California. P>oard of Fisli and (lame Commissioners 1910. Twenty-lirst biennial report of the P.oard of Fish and Game Commis- sioners for the years 1909-1910. Sacramento, State Printer, 72 pp. Chadwick, Harold K. 1962. Catch records from the striped bass sjiortfishery in California. Calif. Fish and (Jame, \dl. 48, no. 8, pji. 1.5.">-177. Clark. G. H. 1988. Fluctuations in the abundance of striped bass i Ron-us liiifntiix) in Cali- fornia. Calif. Div. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. .•'.9. 20 pp. 1986. A second report on strii)e(I bass taj;«inf;'. Calif. Fish and (iame, vol. 22, uo. 4, pp. 272-2S8. Crai«. .1. A. 19,80. An analysis of catch statistics of the striped bass (Rorcus lineafus) fishery of California. Calif. Div. P'ish and (Jame, Fish Bull. 24, 48 pp. Ilubbs. Carl L.. and Leonard P. Schr.ltz 1929. Tlie northward occurrence of southern forms of marine life aloui: tlie I'acific Coast in 192(). Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 284-240. Merriman, Daniel 1941. Studies on th<' strijied l)ass (Roccus sd.rnfilis) on the Atlantic Coast. U.S. Fish and Wild. Surv., Fish. P.ull., vol. .50, no. 85, 77 pp. Morgan, Alfred R., and Arthur R. Gerlach 1950. Striped bass studies on Coos Bay, OreRon. in 1949 and 19.50. OreRon Fish Comm., Contrib., no. 14, 31 pp. 206 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Radovich, John 1960. Some causes of fluctuations in catches of the Pacific sardine Sardinops caei-idea (Girard). FAO World Sci. Meet. Biol. Sardines and Related Species, Proc, vol. 3, Exp. pap., no. 14, pp. 1081-1093. 1961. Relationships of some marine organisms of the northeast Pacific to water tempeiatures particularly during 1957 through 19.59. Calif. Dept. Fish and (4ame, Fish Bull. 112, 62 pp. Robinson, Margaret K. 1961. The use of a common reference period for evaluating climatic coherence in temperature and salinity records from Alaska to California. Mar. Res. Comm., Calif. Coop. Fish. Invest.. Rept., vol. S, pp. 121-130. Scofield, Eugene C. 1931. The striped bass of California (Rocciis lineafiis). Calif. Div. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 29, 84 pp. Scofield, N. B., and H. C. Bryant 1926. The striped bass in California. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 55-74. Skinner, John E. 1962. An historical review of the fish and wildlife resources of the San Francisco Bay aroa. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Water Proj. Br. Rept. 1, 226 pp. Smith, Hugh M. 1896. A review of the history and results of the attempts to acclimatize fish and other water animals in the Pacific states. U.S. Fish Comm., Bull., vol. 15, pp. 379-472. 1908. The United States Bureau of Fisheries, its establishment, functions, organi- zation, resources, operations and achie\ements. U.S. Bur. Fish., Bull. 28, pp. 13()7-1411. St. Amant, J. A. 1959. Striped l)ass introduced into the Colorado River. Calif. Fish and (Jame, vol. 45, no. 4, p. 353. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 1956. Surface water temi)erature at tide stations. Pacific Coast, North and South America and Pacific Islands. Its Spec. I'ub., no. 280, 74 pp. NOTES GRAIN PREFERENCE OF CAPTIVE WATERFOWL Examining gizzard contents is the nsual metliod of determining water- fowl food habits; however, this techniqne does not necessarily reflect their innate preference toward varions grains. Based on gizzard anal- yses, the monograph of Martin and Uhler (1951) represents the most comprehensive stndy of food habits of game dncks throughout the United States. Using the same techniqne, Vokum and Keller (IDGl) reported on waterfowl food habits at Humboldt Bay, California. Our study was undertaken to gain some knowledge abont their actnal ])reference for a limited variety of grains independent of availability. MATERIALS AND METHODS An experimental gronp of 27 waterfowl consisting of five lesser Canada geese (Branta canadensis parvipes), one cackling goose (Branta canadensis minima), one snow goose {Chen hypcrhorea) , one Ross's goose (Chen rossH), five pintails (Anas acuta), fonr mallards (Anas platyrhyncJws), fonr cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptcra), three green- v/inged teal (Anas carolinensis) and five coots (Fiilica americana) v\'(>re maintained in an enclosed pen from Jannary 22, 1962 to March 5, 1962. These birds were fed ad Jil)idum, a choice of seven grains placed in identical stainless steel pans, which were randomly distributed daily. The seven grains tested were watergrass or barnyard grass (EchinochJoa crusgaUi) , Pnrina hen chow (a mixture of cracked corn, wheat, Kaffir corn and milo), sudan grass (Sorghum sndunense) , reed canary grass (Phalaris arvndinacea) , whole barley (Ilordeum vulgare), alkali bulrush (Scirpus rohnstus), and smartweed (Polygonum penn- sylvanicum) . Every two days the amount of grain consumed was determined by the Aveight loss from each pan. Spillage was minimal. RESULTS The amount of grain consumed varied from 1,182 to 2,274: grams per day with an average of 1,728 zb 108 grams per day (mean ± standard error), or 64 grams per bird per day. Watergrass was always pre- ferred over the other six grains, and it comprised 47 to 78.3 percent of the total grain consumed (Table 1). Purina hen chow was the second choice followed by sudan grass, reed canary grass, barley, alkali bul- rush, and smartweed (Table 1). (207) 208 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME TABLE 1 Grain Preference of Captive Waterfowl I'etceui of total Average Preference Grain grain consumed Value AVatergrass (barnyard grass) 47.0-78.8 100.0 Purina hen chow ir).4-8r).9 42.8 Sudan grass 13.4-21.9 21.7 Reed canary grass 6.^-10.2 14.8 Whole barley 4.0- 8.4 7.6 Alkali bulru.sh 0.0- .1.7 4.2 Sniartvveed 0.0- 4.9 3.9 To relate the preference of the various grains tested, an average preference value was calenlated by assigning the value of 100 to the watergrass consumed and relating the percentage of other grains con- sumed to that of watergrass as follows : . „ , percent of grain eaten ^ ^ ^ ,^,, Average preference value ^= X 100 jjercent ot watergrass eaten Based on this calculation, watergrass is preferred about 2 to 1 over Purina hen chow, 5 to 1 over sudan grass, and 12 to 1 over barley (Table 1). DISCUSSION This study is apparently the first attempt to evaluate grain prefer- ence independent of availability in captive waterfowl. It is therefore important to determine whether the results are realistic based on the experiences of others. The average consumption of 61 grams per bird per day appears to be acceptable, at least for the larger ducks. Wise (1960) reported that during 1960, 50 captive mallards consumed 30. -S to 84.8 grams per duck ]ier day, while .50 captive pintails consumed 28.6 to 82.3 grams per duck per day. We assumed that the relatively greater consum])tion of grain by the geese iti our experiment was balanced by the relatively lower consumption by the small waterfowl. With respect to preference, the data of Martin and Uhler (1951) rank the grains in decreasing recovery as follows: Scirpus sp., Poly- (jcinnm sp., Eclniiochloa crusgalli, Sorghum rnJuarc, Ho)r]enm vulgare. Probably the high frequency of recovering Scripiis and Polyganum reflects the numerous species of these grains available for waterfowl to eat. Yokum and Keller (1961) ranked these grains as follows: Hor- fhum vuJgare, Scirpii>; sp., PoJiigrnuim sp. ; EchinochJna and Sorghvm were not found. Since the preference rankiiig of our investigation agrees in part with both of the above reports, we assume the prefer- ence observations for the various grains are valid and the differences in ranking reflect grain availability. Obviously, much additional work is needed in order clearly to rank waterfowl grain preference. SUMMARY Twenty-seven captive ducks and geese provided grains ad lihidum, ])referred Avatergrass to all others tested. Their second choice was Purina hen chow, followed by sudan grass, reed canary grass, whole barley, alkali bulrush, and smartweed. NOTES 20!) This stiulv was supixjrtccl in part by I'. S. Public IJcaltli Service Grant. Keseareh Grant RG 8538 and Federal Aid to Wildlife Restora- tion [)i-()j(>ct W-30-R. REFERENCES Marl in. A. ('.. and F. M. Ihlcr i;)."il. Food of ,u:n>u' (hu-ks in thi' luKcd Stales and Canada. Res. Rcpt. 80, U.S. (iovt. Print. Off., Washington, 80S pp. (Reprint of F.S.D.A. Tei-h. Bull. 684) Wise, R. W. ]!)(iO. Food consumption and nutritive i-e(|uirenients of inallai-(l and pintail ducks in c;iptivit.\'. Masters Thesis. I'niw ("alif.. I>.a\is. -fO pp. Yokuiu, ('harles F.. and Methew Keller I'.M'il. Correlation of food habits and aliundance id' waterfowl, Iluiniioldl I'l.ny, California. Calif. Fish and (Janie. vol. 47. no. 1, j)]). 41 -.1.8. — Larry Z. McFarland, Dv pari mod of Anatomy, School of Vet- rrinary Medicine, V)iiversiiy of California, Davis, California, and Harry (Seorye and Harold McKinnie, Game Management Brancli, l)( parfmeni of Fisli and Game, December 1962. A FANTAIL SOLE, XYSTREURYS UOLEPIS, IN MONTEREY BAY On .Inly H.4. l!)o2. a K^^ inch fantail sole was taken in an otter trawl in 4.3 fathoms olf the Salinas River by the vessel Tliree Sisters. AVhen the catch, chiefly Enr(if< ufhk may seek its food from the top of the ocean to the bottom. Phillips (1983) gave a good description of Moroteuthis robiista along with a discnssion of other Calif ornian squids. Thomson (1900) de- scribed the fourth Alaskan specimen in considerable detail, the two largest Moroteuthis I examined agree closely with his description. REFERENCES Croker, R. S. 1034. Giant sciuid taken at La,i;viiia Beach, Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 20, no. 3, p. li!)7. Dall, William llcalev IST."!. Aleutian (•('jjlialupods. Amei'. Xat., vol. 7, jip. 484-485. Phillips, .J. B. 1933. Description of a slant s(inid taken at Monterey, with notes on other sqnid tak(>n off tlie California coast. Calif. I'lsli and Game. vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 128-13G, figs. 47-49. 1961. Two niuisnal cephalopods taken near ^lonterey. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 416-417, fig. 1. T'homi)siin, D'Arcy W. I'.'Ol. ( )ii .-I rare cnttlefish, A iicistiotciifli is rohiistti (Dallj Steenslnip. I'roe. Zool. Soe. London, for 1900, jij). ;I92-99S, figs. 1-2. ^>rrill, A. E. 1876. Note on gigantic cephalopods, — a correction. Amer. .Jonr. Sci. and Arts, .3rd ser., vol. 12, no. (i9, pp. 2.36-237. — Allyn G. Smith, Deportment of Invertebrate Zoology, Cali- fornia Academy of Sciences, San Francisco 18, California, November 1962. 212 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME A SECOND LARGE CATCH OF PACIFIC ROUND HERRING ( )ii November 28, 1962 another large and iinnsnal catch of Pacific round herring (Etrtimeus acuminates Gilbert), totaling 4,250 pounds, was made with a lampara net near the west end of 8anta Catalina Island, lat. 33° 28' 44" N. long. 118° 36' 17" W. by Michael Di Meglio on the boat Riptide. In this instance the fish were not mixed with other species. The first large catch was made November 9, 1961 near Long Beach when a purse seiner took about 2 tons of round herring mixed with 8 tons of .jack mackerel and Pacific mackerel (Carlisle 1962). This note gives me an opportunity to correct an oversight in my pre- vious paper wdiere two references to Californian occurrences were over- looked. Jackson (1927) reported round herring were observed in San Pedro fish markets in 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1927; Clark (1934) re- ported three individuals in mackerel catches in 1934. Sexes, total lengths (in millimeters) and weights (in grams) of a three-fish sample from the Riptide catch are : Seo! Length Weight M 277 187 M 285 213 F 200 212 REFERENCES Carlisle, John (i., Jr. 1962. An mmsual cafoh of a larije miniber of I'acific round horrinR- off Long Beach, California. Calif. Fish and (Jame, vol. 48, no. o, p. 20!). Clark. Frances N. 1934. T'ncommon fish taken at San Pedro. Calif. Fish and (Jame. vol. 20. no. 4, pp. 393-394. Jackson, Carl R. 1927. The occurrence of the Japanese herring. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 141. — John G. Carlisle, Jr., Marine Resources Operations, California Department of Fish and Game, December 1962. NEW NORTHERN RECORDS FOR OCEAN WHITEFISH CAULOLATILUS PRINCEPS (JENYNS) An 11-ounce oceaii whitefish, 258 mm standard length, was taken September 27, 1962 by Chester Plall of the trawler Simset off Redding Rock, Humboldt County, California. It was taken in an otter-type shrimp net trawled between lat. 41° 23' N., long. 124° 21' W. and lat. 41° 19' N., long. 124° 20' W. at 55 to 57 fathoms. This location is over 220 miles north of the previously recorded range for the species. Another ocean whitefish was received from A. Paladini Co. at Fort P»ragg on December 10, 1962. The origin of this fish is unknown but it doubtlessly came from a trawl vessel operating from Fort Bragg. Both were deposited at California Academy of Sciences. Ocean whitefish are uncommon north of Point Conception but have been known previously to range to the Farallon Islands off central California (Radovich, ^961, Roedel, 1953). NOTES REFERENCES 21;] Ivudox'icli, .Inhu l!)(i1. Hclatioiisliips of sonic marine oiuanisnis of tlie northeast Pacific to water tempera tn re. particularly durinu; li).")! tlirouf;li IK.")!). Calif. ])ept. Fish and Game, Fish Pnill. 112, 61 pp. Koedel, Phil M. li)r»8. ("ommon ocean fishes of the ("alifoniia coast. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish P.iill. !)1, 1.S4 pp. — Tout .J()H\ Marine Rcsoiircfs Operaiioiis, California Depart- vieiit of Fisli and (lonir, Jan nan/ 1963. GREENLAND HALIBUT, REINHARDTIUS HIPPOGLOSSOIDES (WALBAUM), ADDED TO CALIFORNIAN FAUNA Diiriiio' the last week of August 1962, Mr. liriiiio ^iattiizzio, of the A. Paladiiii Fish Co., Fort Bra<>j»-, California, observed a lar^2. A st>;i urchin, a hil)ster and a fish, new to tlic marine fauna ,i \ . Inc.. San Francisco, l!t()2: X + 107 pp. i>nit'u.'<('l.v illustrated with text dra\vinj;s, etc.; $2.2."i (jjapcr- buund I . This is the tit'tli revision of a basic field i;uide oriiiinally pul)lished in l!t8S as an outgrowth of material developed hy the two Xeedhaiiis (father and son) at ("ornell I'nix'ersity. It differs from previous printinjis primarily through the added keys of the common fishes, updated classification, and improNcd format. The stated purpose is to facilitate reco<;nition of fr<'shwater oi-i;anisms commonly found in the field tlirouj;h()Ut the Tnited States. As previously, the nnuuial is divided into two parts : keys and line drawin-.^s for identification, and information on collecting methods and equipment needs. A few minor criticisms are in order. One of the best references for identifying western acpiatic insect forms, I'singer et (il.. .\(/ii(itic Insects of Californin is only casually mentioned under Ilemiptera. The reason generic names were listed in dupli- cate under each plate is not clear to me. References for algae were begun on page 11 and resnmed on page 1(5 for no apparent reason. One serious omission from the section on mollusks is the Asiatic clam, Corhiciila, which is now^ nationwide in distribution and a real ))roblem in man.v areas. ^Vith our ever-expanding iaiowledge, it becomes increasingly difficult to organize a manual which will undertake identification of such a broad, diverse field as inverte- brate life of inland waters. Despite its l)readtli, this guide is still the best compact field manual students and biologists will find for nationwide general classification of aquatic organisms. Those ^Yishing to delve into detailed studies of .specific groups or regional faunas will want to ciuisult the reference works noted. — Willis A. Evans. Cdlifoniid Departiiieiit of Fish and (lame. A Treasury of Birdlore Edited by J(jseph Wood Krutch and Paul S. Eriksson, Donl)leday & Company, Inc.. New York, I'.Kil' ; xviii + P>!>(> pp., r>-2 figures; .*?7.r)(). Strictly speaking, a concise review of this antlndogy could l)e accomplished by simply using the title alone, A Trcnsuvy of Birdlore. for a treasury it is indeed. Acknowledgments of copyrighted material from which the various selections were taken are first presented. A four-page introduction sets the stage, and a list of authors and titles of selections are placed under five broad headings as folloAV : '"P^light," "Family Matters." "Birds of a Feather,'' "Birds and Men." and "P]xtinc- tion and Oonservation." Some 84 articles, from brief one-page accounts to those several pages long, comjirise the "meat" of the book. The sub.]'ect matter is quite broad, including in part: fossil history, fiight, migration, capacity and intelligence, courtship, .social behavior, hibernation, \(iice and sruig. bird banding, bird anting, extinct species, and conser\ation. The stories selected are written in the popular vein for the most part and are arranged to make easy and very enjoyable reading. The tenor of the various sub- .iects runs from the humorous to the downright tragic, and covers a wide range between. Very few typogriiiiiic.-il (n-r!)rs we'-e observed and the continuit.v is very good. The editors did a fine .I'ob of selecting the articles from publications covering a period of several hundred years. Several pages of figures supplement the text, which is unfortunate, as the.v serve very little purpose that I can see. Their general arrangement is poor, there is much repetition of species illustrated, and the captions are not conii)letely correct (figures 12 and 18 have captions i-eversed ; in figure .'IT a "Water Thrush or ^Vater ( )uzel" is depicted, presumably to illustrate John Muir's story "The Water Ouzel." The bird (217) 218 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME shown is a water thrush Init can hardly be considered an ouzel as Mr. iluir so vividly describes). If illustrations were deemed necessary, it would seem a better selection could have been made. "While I cannot help feeling critical of many of the ligures, I unhesitatingly recommend this book to anyone interested in ornithology either as a field of study or as a casual bird watcher or "dickey birder." This work compiles a vast amount of history and other birdloi-e information into one volume that otherwise would require mucli liltrary research to obtain. As previously stated, this is indeed A Treasunj of Birdlore. — WiUknn D. Haives, California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Capture By Ronnie Balls, Edward Arnold (Publ.) Ltd., London (American agents, St. Martin's Press, Inc., New York), 1901; 144 pp., 2 black and white plates, 14 text fig-ures ; $1.75. This is another in the Buckland lecture series. Captain Balls has spent his life in the pursuit of sea fishes and here reports many of his ol)servations and experi- ences in the capture of fishes. He begins with a simple discussion of the various fishing methods in use all over the world and follows with a rather complete description of English trawling and herring drifting. The final section is de\'oted to observations of fish behavior, pri- marily herring; reaction of fish to fishing gear; locating fish by echo-sounding; and future developments in fisliing gear and techniques. The sections on fish behavior and reaction are very timely and thought-provoking. Anyone interested in the pursuit of fish will find this stimulating as well as interest- ing reading. — E. A. Best, California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Culture By C. F. Hickling, Faber & Faber Publ., London, 1962 ; 295 pp., 66 figures ; 45/. At a time when worldwide emphasis is being placed on increasing production of freshwater food fishes to fill protein needs of an expanding human population, Mr. Hickling"s Fish Culture should well serve administrators, biologists, fish culturists, and st'.idents concerned with pond-fish culture. The book compiles works and findings of researchers in many lands and is probably the most extensive English-language reference available today. Rearing of several species of food fishes in many parts of the world, both as principal enterprises or in conjunction with land crops, is reviewed. Chapters deal with fertilization, sui)plemental feeding, stocking rates, species composition, produc- tion trends and problems, as well as water and pond soil requirements. Water and soil chemistry is well covered, particularly the interaction of pond water and pond mud in releasing and adsorbing nutrients. Genetics, hybridization, and diseases of pond fishes are touched upon. As Mr. Hickling states, his book is not concerned with producing ornamental and aquarium fish, nor with producing trout and other game fishes. Aside from general information, this book would be of little value to operators of large, govern- ment or commercial trout ha.tcheries since the brief coverage of methods and results is hardly applicable to techniques presently employed in this country. Warmwater game fish culturists and i)io]ogists managing lake and pond fisheries will, however, find some pro\<)king information. If the author were to revise this book, I would suggest addition, in parentheses, of weight and area conversions to a common factor when, within the same para- graph comparing jiroduction from different ponds, results are given in metric, English, and Anu'rican units of measure. In a single sentence, kilograms per hec- tare may be compared with tons per acre. Readability is impaired for the person not in daily contact with these terms, for the thought train is interrupted while he mentally converts grams to ounces or English hundredweight to tons. Portions of the book seem repetitive, which may represent an intentional effort by the author to place emphasis on certain points. It more probably is an unavoidable product of assembling and citing, with proper credit, the results obtained by so many other workers. REVIEWS 219 The book is well illustrated and the many photos, alonj; with Mr. llieklinjj's word pictures of, to me, strange and often insrenious methods in distant lands, added interest to the text. — Wi1Ii(nii ^f. IkifhunJsoii. CnVifuniiii ])< pnrfmrnf of Fish anciff : I>oui)lc(lay iV: ("o.. Inc. (larden City, New Vnrk, IDOli; 28S pp., lOB illustrations; ^4.'.)',. This Ixtok contains 20 chapters liy IS authors which deal with a vast array of fishing- subjects ranging from fly fishing for trout to fishing for swordflsh and giant tuna. Nine chapters discuss angling in salt water while the remainder deal with freshwater. For a book of this size, the coverage is exceptional. Freshwater angling tojjics include fishing for trout, bass, carp, salmon, and many others. Salt-water angling sections are (M|nall>' broad and discuss angling on botli .Vtlantic and Pacific coasts. The expectional coverage of this book suggests it is intended primarily foi' the novice angler. Herein lies one of its l);isic weaknesses. The authors generally did not have sufficient space to deal with fundamentals. Fly fishing for trout, a snl)ject on which legends have been written, is treated in just 18 pages. While the author, Kay ()\ington. has done a creditable job. it is worth noting that space did not permit including basic material on casting, rod and reel selection, knots, or lines and leaders. This criticism is not directed at the authors ; many of them have done a difficult jol) extremely well. There is no question but that the value of this book would have been greatly increased if a list of supplementary reading material had been provided at the end of each c-hai>ter. I'nfortunately, this book may be of limited value to most .anglers. The novice will certainly require much more in the way of fundamentals, while the seasoned angler will be interested in only a few of the many chapters. — Charles E. von Gehiern, Jr.. C'lilifoniid D('ii 2 o 3 > > r •n 0 □ z s> ■B g o a — a S 5 1 ? > z H n n □ > s m > O D S «> 5 ^ 0 •*• •< o z 0 35; > 0> ■< H « m ■n a> r •• n _ n z n ^ S ° C n a r 2 < -f E PI D